[Mova](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/falkum-2017-lexical-pragmatics-count-mass-polysemy/)

[home](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [docs](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/) / [papers](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/) / [English](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/en/) / The lexical pragmatics of count-mass polysemy

# The lexical pragmatics of count-mass polysemy

**Authors:** Ingrid L. Falkum · **Year:** 2017 · **Venue:** Semantics and Pragmatics, 10(20) **Link:** [doi.org/10.3765/sp.10.20](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.10.20) · **Licence:** [CC BY 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)

[**13** citations](https://openalex.org/works?filter=cites:W2778732916) openalex · 2026-10-19[Semantics and Pragmatics](https://openalex.org/S33105140)[licence](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)

- [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.10.20)
- [PDF](https://semprag.org/index.php/sp/article/download/sp.10.20/pdf)
- [DOI 10.3765/sp.10.20](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.10.20)
- [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W2778732916)

**Authors (1)**

1. [Falkum, Ingrid L.](https://openalex.org/A5050931834) [ORCID](https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1203-8036) · [Semantic Scholar](https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/15515709) · h 13 · 1088 citations · 63 works

Citations and author metrics from openalex (2026-10-19); authors with the same name are not always told apart.

## What it is about

The paper studies a regular kind of polysemy in English nouns that depends on count and mass use: *shoot a rabbit* (the animal), *eat rabbit* (the meat), and *wear rabbit* (the fur). Computational semantics has usually treated such alternations as produced by a fixed set of lexical rules. The paper argues against this. Count-mass syntax, on this view, is only a procedural constraint on the referent of the noun phrase, and it leaves a semantic output that is less specific than rule-based accounts assume. The author proposes a single relevance-guided lexical pragmatic mechanism, ad hoc concept construction, which handles the regular cases that the rules cover, as well as the cases that rule-based accounts can only solve by appealing to pragmatics. The paper is theoretical and uses worked examples; it reports no experiments or numbers.

## Ideas

- I1. `en/src/morph.rs` and the lexicon in `en/src/dict.rs`: mark nouns that have count and mass uses, and let the determiner or the bare form choose the sense (*a rabbit* against *rabbit* as food). Test the choice on the lesson sentences that use these nouns.
- I2. Keep one lexical sense with an "underspecified" flag and let the context step (`prag/src/infer.rs`) pick the specific reading. Log which cue chose it, so that every choice can be explained.
- I3. Negative control: proper nouns and mass-only nouns must not receive the alternation. A rule that gives them a count reading is wrong, and the check should show it.

## For Mova

The chapters are [11. Nouns](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/en/11-nouns/) (count and mass nouns) and [19. The lexicon: vocabulary, multiword expressions and register](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/en/19-lexicon-mwe-register/) (word senses). The code is `en/src/morph.rs` for the count-mass features, `world/src/dictionary.rs` for senses, and `prag/src/infer.rs` for the context choice. The measures: sense accuracy on the lesson sentences with count-mass nouns, and the negative-control error rate. The paper gives no numbers to match, so the test set has to be built by hand from its examples.

Topics: [Word sense disambiguation](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/topics/word-sense-disambiguation/)

## Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. [DOI 10.3765/sp.10.20](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.10.20)

```
@article{falkum2017lexical,
  title = {{The lexical pragmatics of count-mass polysemy}},
  author = {Falkum, Ingrid L.},
  journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics},
  year = {2017},
  doi = {10.3765/sp.10.20},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.10.20}
}
```

- [← previous VerbAtlas: a Novel Large-Scale Verbal Semantic Resource and Its Application to Semantic Role Labeling](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/fabio-2019-verbatlas-novel-large-scale-verbal/)
- [next → The discourse commitments of illocutionary reportatives](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/faller-2019-discourse-commitments-illocutionary-reportatives/)
- [↑ back to English](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/en/)

## References

125 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Allan, Keith. 1980. Nouns and countability. Language 56(3). 541–567. https://doi.org/10.2307/414449. [↗](https://doi.org/10.2307/414449)
2. Allott, Nicholas & Mark Textor. 2012. Lexical pragmatic adjustment and the nature of ad hoc concepts. International Review of Pragmatics 4(2). 185– 208. https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00040204. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00040204)
3. Apresjan, Iurii Derenikovich. 1974. Regular polysemy. Linguistics 14(2). 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1974.12.142.5. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1974.12.142.5)
4. Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press. https://doi.org/2027/heb08413.0001.001. [↗](https://doi.org/2027/heb08413.0001.001)
5. Asher, Nicholas. 2011. Lexical meaning in context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511793936. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511793936)
6. Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Asher%2C+Nicholas+%26+Alex+Lascarides%2E+2003%2E+Logics+of+conversation%2E+Cambridge%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
7. 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffp003. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffp003)
8. Barner, David & Jesse Snedeker. 2005. Quantity judgments and individuation: Evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition 97(1). 41–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.06.009. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.06.009)
9. Barner, David & Jesse Snedeker. 2006. Children’s early understanding of mass-count syntax: Individuation, lexical content, and the number asymmetry hypothesis. Language Learning and Development 2(3). 163–194. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15473341lld0203_2. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1207/s15473341lld0203_2)
10. Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Blakemore%2C+Diane%2E+1987%2E+Semantic+constraints+on+relevance%2E+Oxford%3A+Blackwell%2E)
11. Bloom, Paul. 1994. Possible names: The role of syntax-semantics mappings in the acquisition of nominals. Lingua 92(1-4). 297–329. https://doi.org/1 0.1016/0024-3841(94)90345-X. [↗](https://doi.org/1)
12. Bloom, Paul. 1996. Possible individuals in language and cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science 5(3). 90–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/1 467-8721.ep10772823. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/1)
13. Bloom, Paul. 1999. The role of semantics in solving the bootstrapping problem. In Ray Jackendoff, Paul Bloom & Karen Wynn (eds.), Language, logic Count-mass polysemy and concepts: Essays in memory of John Macnamara, 285–310. Cambridge: MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bloom%2C+Paul%2E+1999%2E+The+role+of+semantics+in+solving+the+bootstrapping+problem%2E+In+Ray+Jackendoff%2C+Paul+Bloom+%26+Karen+Wynn+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Language%2C+logic+Count%2Dmass+polysemy+and+concepts%3A+Essays+in+memory+of+)
14. Bloom, Paul & Deborah Kelemen. 1995. Syntactic cues in the acquisition of collective nouns. Cognition 56(1). 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-02 77(94)00648-5. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-02)
15. Blutner, Reinhard. 1998. Lexical pragmatics. Journal of Semantics 15(2). 115– 162. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/15.2.115. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/15.2.115)
16. Blutner, Reinhard. 2002. Lexical semantics and pragmatics. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 10. 27–58. [https://blutner.de/lexsem.pdf](https://blutner.de/lexsem.pdf). [↗](https://blutner.de/lexsem.pdf)
17. Blutner, Reinhard. 2007. Optimality theoretic pragmatics and the explicature/ implicature distinction. In Noel Burton-Roberts (ed.), Pragmatics, 67–89. London: Palgrave-Macmillan. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Blutner%2C+Reinhard%2E+2007%2E+Optimality+theoretic+pragmatics+and+the+explicature%2F+implicature+distinction%2E+In+Noel+Burton%2DRoberts+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Pragmatics%2C+67%E2%80%9389%2E+London%3A+Palgrave%2DMacmillan%2E)
18. Blutner, Reinhard. 2010. Some experimental aspects of optimality-theoretic pragmatics. In Enikö Németh & Károli Bibok (eds.), The role of data at the semantics-pragmatics interface (Mouton Series in Pragmatics [MSP] 9), 161–204. Berlin: de Gryuter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110240276.161. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110240276.161)
19. Boleda, Gemma, Sebastian Padó & Jason Utt. 2012. Regular polysemy: A distributional model. In Semeval ’12: Proceedings of the first joint conference on lexical and computational semantics, 151–160. Montréal: Association for Computational Linguistics. [http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=23876](http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=23876) 36.2387663. [↗](http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=23876)
20. Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense, volume 1: In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263905.00 1.0001. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263905.00)
21. Borthen, Kaja. 2003. Norwegian bare singulars. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science & Technology dissertation. [http://hdl.handle.net/1125](http://hdl.handle.net/1125) 0/242756. [↗](http://hdl.handle.net/1125)
22. Bosch, Peter. 1983. “Vagueness” is context-dependence: A solution to the sorites paradox. In Thomas T. Ballmer & Manfred Pinkal (eds.), Approaching vagueness, 189–210. Amsterdam: North Holland Linguistic Series. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bosch%2C+Peter%2E+1983%2E+%E2%80%9CVagueness%E2%80%9D+is+context%2Ddependence%3A+A+solution+to+the+sorites+paradox%2E+In+Thomas+T%2E+Ballmer+%26+Manfred+Pinkal+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Approaching+vagueness%2C+189%E2%80%93210%2E+Amsterdam%3A+North+Holland+Linguis)
23. Bosch, Peter. 1995. Meaning and contextual concepts. In Manfred Bierwisch & Peter Bosch (eds.), Semantic and conceptual knowledge: Papers from a joint workshop of the Max Planck Arbeitsgruppe “Strukturelle Grammatik” and the IBM Institute for Logic and Linguistics, 79–99. Tübingen & Berlin: Arbeitsberichte des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bosch%2C+Peter%2E+1995%2E+Meaning+and+contextual+concepts%2E+In+Manfred+Bierwisch+%26+Peter+Bosch+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Semantic+and+conceptual+knowledge%3A+Papers+from+a+joint+workshop+of+the+Max+Planck+Arbeitsgruppe+%E2%80%9CStruktu)
24. Bosch, Peter. 2007. Productivity, polysemy and predicate indexicality. In Henk W. Zeewat & Balder ten Cate (eds.), Language, logic and computation: I. L. Falkum TbiLLC 2005 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4363), 58–71. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75144-1_5. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75144-1_5)
25. Briscoe, Ted, Ann Copestake & Alex Lascarides. 1995. Blocking. In Patrick Saint-Dizier & Evelyn Viegas (eds.), Computational lexical semantics, 273– 302. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10 . 1017 /CBO9780511527227.018. [↗](https://doi.org/10)
26. Bunt, Harry C. 1985. Mass terms and model-theoretic semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bunt%2C+Harry+C%2E+1985%2E+Mass+terms+and+model%2Dtheoretic+semantics%2E+Cambridge%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
27. Carston, Robyn. 1988. Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics. In Ruth M. Kempson (ed.), Mental representations: The interface between language and reality, 155–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Carston%2C+Robyn%2E+1988%2E+Implicature%2C+explicature%2C+and+truth%2Dtheoretic+semantics%2E+In+Ruth+M%2E+Kempson+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Mental+representations%3A+The+interface+between+language+and+reality%2C+155%E2%80%93181%2E+Cambridge%3A+Cambrid)
28. Carston, Robyn. 1997. Enrichment and loosening: Complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed. In Eckard Rolf (ed.), Pragmatik: Implikaturen und Sprechakte (Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 8), 103– 127. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-11116-0_7. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-11116-0_7)
29. Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1002/9 780470754603. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1002/9)
30. Carston, Robyn. 2010. Explicit communication and ‘free’ pragmatic enrichment. In Belén Soria & Esther Romero (eds.), Explicitness: Robyn Carston’s pragmatics (Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition (PSPLC)). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/97802302 92352_14. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1057/97802302)
31. Carston, Robyn. 2012. Word meaning and concept expressed. The Linguistic Review 29(4). 607–623. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2012-0022. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2012-0022)
32. Carston, Robyn. 2013. Word meaning, what is said and explicature. In Carlo Penco & Filippo Domaneschi (eds.), What is said and what is not: The semantics/ pragmatics interface, 175–204. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Carston%2C+Robyn%2E+2013%2E+Word+meaning%2C+what+is+said+and+explicature%2E+In+Carlo+Penco+%26+Filippo+Domaneschi+%28eds%2E%29%2C+What+is+said+and+what+is+not%3A+The+semantics%2F+pragmatics+interface%2C+175%E2%80%93204%2E+Stanford%2C+CA%3A+)
33. Carston, Robyn. 2016. The heterogeneity of procedural meaning. Lingua 175-176. 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.010. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.010)
34. Carston, Robyn. 2019. Ad hoc concepts, polysemy and the lexicon. In Kate Scott, Billy Clark & Robyn Carston (eds.), Relevance, pragmatics, and interpretation, 150–162. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://d oi.org/10.1017/9781108290593.014. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108290593.014)
35. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across language. Natural Language Semantics 6(4). 339–405. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:10083242185 06. Count-mass polysemy Clark, Eve V. & Herbert H. Clark. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55(4). 767–811. https://doi.org/10.2307/412745. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1023/a:10083242185)
36. Clark, Stephen. 2015. Vector space models of lexical meaning. In Shalom Lappin & Chris Fox (eds.), Handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 493– 522. Malden: Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118882139.ch 16. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118882139.ch)
37. Copestake, Ann. 2015. Can distributional approaches improve on Good Old-Fashioned Lexical Semantics? In Aurelie Herbelot, Roberto Zamparelli & Gemma Boleda (eds.), Proceedings of IWCS 2013 workshop: Towards a formal distributional semantics, 11–20. Potsdam: Association for Computational Linguistics. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W13-0602. [↗](https://aclanthology.org/W13-0602/)
38. Copestake, Ann & Ted Briscoe. 1992. Lexical operations in a unification-based framework. In James Pustejovsky & Sabine Bergler (eds.), Lexical semantics and knowledge representation: Proceedings of the First SIGLEX Workshop, 101–119. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-55 801-2_30. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-55)
39. Copestake, Ann & Ted Briscoe. 1995. Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics 12(1). 15–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/12.1.15. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/jos)
40. Dölling, Johannes. 2020. Systematic polysemy. In Lisa Matthewson, Cécile Meier, Hotze Rullmann & Thomas Ede Zimmermann (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to semantics. Oxford: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10 .1002/9781118788516.sem099. [↗](https://doi.org/10)
41. Eckardt, Regine. 2006. Meaning change in grammaticalization: An enquiry into semantic reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199262601.001.0001. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199262601.001.0001)
42. Erk, Katrin. 2012. Vector space models of word meaning and phrase meaning: A survey. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(10). 635–653. https://doi.org/10.1002/lnco.362. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1002/lnco.362)
43. Espinal, M. Teresa. 2010. Bare nominals in Catalan and Spanish: Their structure and meaning. Lingua 120(4). 984–1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.li ngua.2009.06.002. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.li)
44. Falkum, Ingrid Lossius. 2011. The semantics and pragmatics of polysemy: A relevance-theoretic account. University College London dissertation. [https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1139079/](https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1139079/). [↗](https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1139079/)
45. Fodor, Jerry A. 1981. The present status of the innateness controversy. In Representations: Philosophical essays on the foundations of cognitive science, 257–316. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Fodor%2C+Jerry+A%2E+1981%2E+The+present+status+of+the+innateness+controversy%2E+In+Representations%3A+Philosophical+essays+on+the+foundations+of+cognitive+science%2C+257%E2%80%93316%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+MIT+Press%2E)
46. I. L. Falkum Fodor, Jerry A. 1998. Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org//10.1093/0198236360.001.0001. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/0198236360.001.0001)
47. Fodor, Jerry A. 2008. LOT2: The language of thought revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548774.00 1.0001. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548774.00)
48. Fodor, Jerry A. & Ernie Lepore. 2002. The compositionality papers. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Fodor%2C+Jerry+A%2E+%26+Ernie+Lepore%2E+2002%2E+The+compositionality+papers%2E+Oxford%3A+Clarendon+Press%2E)
49. Frisson, Steven & Lyn Frazier. 2005. Carving up word meaning: Portioning and grinding. Journal of Memory and Language 53(2). 277–291. https://d oi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.03.004. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.03.004)
50. Geis, Michael L. & Arnold M. Zwicky. 1971. On invited inferences. Linguistic Inquiry 2(4). 561–566. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177664](http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177664). [↗](http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177664)
51. Gibbs, Raymond W. 1994. The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gibbs%2C+Raymond+W%2E+1994%2E+The+poetics+of+mind%3A+Figurative+thought%2C+language%2C+and+understanding%2E+Cambridge%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
52. Gillon, Brendan S. 1992. Towards a common semantics for English count and mass nouns. Linguistics and Philosophy 15(6). 597–639. https://doi.org/1 0.1007/BF00628112. [↗](https://doi.org/1)
53. Gillon, Brendan S. 1999. The lexical semantics of English count and mass nouns. In Evelyne Viegas (ed.), The breadth and depth of semantic lexicons: Text, speech and language technology, vol. 10, 19–37. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0952-1_2. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0952-1_2)
54. Grimm, Scott. 2012. Number and individuation. Stanford University dissertation. [https://purl.stanford.edu/jq748dq4516](https://purl.stanford.edu/jq748dq4516). [↗](https://purl.stanford.edu/jq748dq4516)
55. Hall, Alison. 2009. Subsentential utterances, ellipsis, and pragmatic enrichment. Pragmatics & Cognition 17(2). 222–250. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc .17.2.02hal. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/pc)
56. Hall, Alison. 2017. Lexical pragmatics, explicature and ad hoc concepts. In Ilse Depraetere & Raphael Salkie (eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line (Logic, Argumentation, and Reasoning (LARI) 11), 85–100. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32247-6_6. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32247-6_6)
57. Heylen, Kris, Thomas Wielfaert, Dirk Speelman & Dirk Geeraerts. 2015. Monitoring polysemy: Word space models as a tool for large-scale lexical semantic analysis. Lingua 157. 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.20 14.12.001. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.20)
58. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO97 81139165525. Count-mass polysemy Imai, Mutsumi & Dedre Gentner. 1997. A cross-linguistic study of early word meaning: Universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition 62(2). 169–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00784-6. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo97)
59. Kennedy, Christopher & Louise McNally. 2010. Color, context, and compositionality. Synthese 174(1). 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-96 85-7. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-96)
60. Kilgarriff, Adam. 1995. Inheriting polysemy. In Patrick St. Dizier & Evelyne Viegas (eds.), Computational lexical semantics, 319–335. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527227.020. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511527227.020)
61. Kilgarriff, Adam & Gerald Gazdar. 1995. Polysemous relations. In Frank Palmer (ed.), Grammar and meaning: Essays in honour of Sir John Lyons, 1–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620638.002. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620638.002)
62. Klepousniotou, Ekaterini. 2002. The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language 81(1-3). 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2518. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2518)
63. Kolaiti, Patricia & Deirdre Wilson. 2014. Corpus analysis and lexical pragmatics: An overview. International Review of Pragmatics 6(2). 211–239. https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00602002. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00602002)
64. Kolkmann, Julia. 2016. What makes a default interpretation? Considerations from English attributive possession. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 22. 99–132. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kolkmann%2C+Julia%2E+2016%2E+What+makes+a+default+interpretation%3F+Considerations+from+English+attributive+possession%2E+Linguistische+Berichte+Sonderheft+22%2E+99%E2%80%93132%2E)
65. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987a. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Langacker%2C+Ronald+W%2E+1987a%2E+Foundations+of+cognitive+grammar%2C+Volume+I%3A+Theoretical+prerequisites%2E+Stanford%2C+CA%3A+Stanford+University+Press%2E)
66. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987b. Nouns and verbs. Language 63(1). 53–94. https ://doi.org/10.2307/415384. [↗](https://doi.org/10.2307/415384)
67. Lascarides, Alex & Ann Copestake. 1998. Pragmatics and word meaning. Journal of Linguistics 34(2). 387–414. https://doi.org/10.1017/S00222267980 07087. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s00222267980)
68. Laurence, Stephen & Eric Margolis. 1999. Concepts and cognitive science. In Eric Margolis & Stephen Laurence (eds.), Concepts: Core readings, 3–81. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9383.001.0 001. [↗](https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9383.001.0)
69. Leech, Geoffrey N. 1981. Semantics: The study of meaning. Harmondsworth: Penguin. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Leech%2C+Geoffrey+N%2E+1981%2E+Semantics%3A+The+study+of+meaning%2E+Harmondsworth%3A+Penguin%2E)
70. Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/1 0.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001. [↗](https://doi.org/1)
71. I. L. Falkum Margolis, Eric & Stephen Laurence (eds.). 2015. The conceptual mind: New directions in the study of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://do i.org/10.7551/mitpress/9383.001.0001. [↗](https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9383.001.0001)
72. McNally, Louise. 2013. Semantics and pragmatics. WIREs Cognitive Science 4(3). 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1227. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1227)
73. McPherson, Leslie Maggie Perrin. 1991. A little goes a long way: Evidence for a perceptual basis of learning for the noun categories count and mass. Journal of Child Language 18(2). 315–338. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305 000900011089. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305)
74. Middleton, Erica L., Edward J. Wisniewski, Kelly A. Trindel & Mutsumi Imai. 2004. Separating the chaff from the oats: Evidence for a conceptual distinction between count noun and mass noun aggregates. Journal of Memory and Language 50(4). 371–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.02 .005. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.02)
75. Mufwene, Salikoko. 1984. The count/mass distinction and the English lexicon. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 20(2): Parasession on lexical semantics. David Testen & Veena Mishra (eds.). 200–221. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Mufwene%2C+Salikoko%2E+1984%2E+The+count%2Fmass+distinction+and+the+English+lexicon%2E+Chicago+Linguistic+Society+%28CLS%29+20%282%29%3A+Parasession+on+lexical+semantics%2E+David+Testen+%26+Veena+Mishra+%28eds%2E%29%2E+200%E2%80%93221%2E)
76. Murphy, Gregory L. 1997. Polysemy and the creation of novel word meanings. In Thomas B. Ward, Steven M. Smith & Jyotsna Vaid (eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes, 235–265. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10 .1037/10227-000. [↗](https://doi.org/10)
77. Murphy, Gregory L. 2002. The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1602.001.0001. [↗](https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1602.001.0001)
78. Noveck, Ira A. & Dan Sperber. 2007. The why and how of experimental pragmatics: The case of ‘scalar inferences’. In Noel Burton-Roberts (ed.), Pragmatics, 184–212. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10 . 1017 /CBO9781139028370.018. [↗](https://doi.org/10)
79. Nunberg, Geoffrey & Annie Zaenen. 1992. Systematic polysemy in lexicology and lexicography. In Hannu Tommola, Krista Varantola, Tarja Salmi-Tolonen & Jurgen Schopp (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th EURALEX International Congress, 386–396. Tampere: Tampereen YIiopisto. https://eurale x.org/publications/systematic-polysemy-in-lexicology-and-lexicography /. Ostler, Nicholas & Beryl T. Atkins. 1992. Predictable meaning shift: Some linguistic properties of lexical implication rules. In James Pustejovsky & Sabine Bergler (eds.), Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Representation: First SIGLEX workshop, Berkeley, CA, USA, June 17, 1991. Proceedings (Lec-Count-mass polysemy ture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI)), 87–100. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-55801-2_29. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-55801-2_29)
80. Papafragou, Anna. 2005. Relations between language and thought: Individuation and the count/mass distinction. In Henri Cohen & Claire Lefebre (eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science, 256–277. Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044612-7/50066-4. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-008044612-7/50066-4)
81. Pelletier, Francis Jeffry. 1975. Non-singular reference: Some preliminaries. Philosophia 5(4). 451–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02379268. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02379268)
82. 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0002. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0002)
83. Pelletier, Francis Jeffry & Lenhart K. Schubert. 2003. Mass expressions. In Dov M. Gabbay & Franz Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 10, 249–335. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-0 17-4524-6_6. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-0)
84. Perner, Josef, Michael Huemer & Brian Leahy. 2015. Mental files and belief: A cognitive theory of how children represent belief and its intensionality. Cognition 145. 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.08.006. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.08.006)
85. Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17(4). 409–441. https://aclanthology.org/J91-4003/. [↗](https://aclanthology.org/J91-4003/)
86. Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Pustejovsky%2C+James%2E+1995%2E+The+generative+lexicon%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+MIT+Press%2E)
87. Quine, Willard Van Orman. 1960. Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9636.001.0001. [↗](https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9636.001.0001)
88. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Quirk%2C+Randolph%2C+Sidney+Greenbaum%2C+Geoffrey+Leech+%26+Jan+Svartvik%2E+1985%2E+A+comprehensive+grammar+of+the+English+language%2E+New+York%3A+Longman%2E)
89. Rabagliati, Hugh, Gary F. Marcus & Liina Pylkkänen. 2010. Shifting senses in lexical semantic development. Cognition 117(1). 17–37. https://doi.org/10 .1016/j.cognition.2010.06.007. [↗](https://doi.org/10)
90. Rabagliati, Hugh, Gary F. Marcus & Liina Pylkkänen. 2011. Rules, radical pragmatics and restrictions on regular polysemy. Journal of Semantics 28(4). 485–512. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffr005. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffr005)
91. Rabagliati, Hugh & Jesse Snedeker. 2013. The truth about chickens and bats: Ambiguity avoidance distinguishes types of polysemy. Psychological Science 24(7). 1354–1360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612472205. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612472205)
92. Recanati, François. 1995. The alleged priority of literal interpretation. Cognitive Science 19(2). 207–232. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1902_2. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1902_2)
93. I. L. Falkum Recanati, François. 2004. Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615382. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511615382)
94. Recanati, François. 2010. Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226993.001.0 001. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226993.001.0)
95. Recanati, François. 2012. Mental files. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https ://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199659982.001.0001. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199659982.001.0001)
96. Recanati, François. 2017. Contextualism and polysemy. Dialectica 71(3). 379– 397. https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-8361.12179. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-8361.12179)
97. Rothschild, Daniel & Gabriel Segal. 2009. Indexical predicates. Mind & Language 24(4). 467–493. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2009.01371.x. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2009.01371.x)
98. Searle, John R. 1983. Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO978113 9173452. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo978113)
99. Soja, Nancy N. 1992. Inferences about the meanings of nouns: The relationship between perception and syntax. Cognitive Development 7(1). 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2014(92)90003-A. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2014(92)90003-a)
100. Soja, Nancy N., Susan Carey & Elizabeth S. Spelke. 1991. Ontological categories guide young children’s inductions of word meanings: Object terms and substance terms. Cognition 38(2). 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0 010-0277(91)90051-5. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0)
101. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sperber%2C+Dan+%26+Deirdre+Wilson%2E+1995%2E+Relevance%3A+Communication+and+cognition%2E+2nd+edn%2E+Oxford%3A+Blackwell%2E)
102. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1998. The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In Peter Carruthers & Jill Boucher (eds.), Language and thought, 184–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597909.012. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511597909.012)
103. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 2008. A deflationary account of metaphor. In Raymond W. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 84–108. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511816802)
104. Stojanovic, Isidora. 2014. Prepragmatics: Widening the semantics/pragmatics boundary. In Alexis Burgess & Brett Sherman (eds.), Metasemantics: New essays on the foundations of meaning, 311–326. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199669592.003.0013. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199669592.003.0013)
105. Szabó, Zoltán Gendler. 2001. Adjectives in context. In István Kenesei & Robert M. Harnish (eds.), Perspectives on semantics, pragmatics and discourse: A Count-mass polysemy festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer, 119–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https ://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.90.12gen. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.90.12gen)
106. Taylor, John R. 2003. Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199266647.001.0001. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199266647.001.0001)
107. Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486500. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486500)
108. Travis, Charles. 1985. On what is strictly speaking true. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 15(2). 187–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1985.10716 416. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1985.10716)
109. Travis, Charles. 2008. Occasion-sensitivity: Selected essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230334.00 1.0001. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230334.00)
110. Van der Henst, Jean-Baptiste, Laure Carles & Dan Sperber. 2002. Truthfulness and relevance in telling the time. Mind & Language 17(5). 457–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00207. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00207)
111. Van der Henst, Jean-Baptiste & Dan Sperber. 2004. Testing the cognitive and communicative principles of relevance. In Ira A. Noveck & Dan Sperber (eds.), Experimental pragmatics (Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition (PSPLC)), 141–171. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://do i.org/10.1057/9780230524125_7. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230524125_7)
112. Van der Henst, Jean-Baptiste, Dan Sperber & Guy Politzer. 2002. When is a conclusion worth deriving? A relevance-based analysis of indeterminate relational problems. Thinking & Reasoning 8(1). 1–20. https://doi.org/10 .1080/13546780143000071. [↗](https://doi.org/10)
113. Vega-Moreno, Rosa. 2007. Creativity and convention: The pragmatics of everyday figurative speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/1 0.1075/pbns.156. [↗](https://doi.org/1)
114. Ware, Robert X. 1975. Some bits and pieces. Synthese 31(3). 379–393. https : //doi.org/10.1007/BF00485210. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00485210)
115. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.18. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.18)
116. Wilson, Deirdre. 2011. The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present and future. In Manuel Leonetti Victoria Escandell-Vidal & Aoife Ahern (eds.), Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives (Current Research in the Semantics/ Pragmatics Interface 25), 3–31. Leiden: Brill. https://do i.org/10.1163/9780857240941_002. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9780857240941_002)
117. I. L. Falkum Wilson, Deirdre & Robyn Carston. 2006. Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ issue. Mind & Language 21(3). 404–433. https://doi.org/1 0.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00284.x. [↗](https://doi.org/1)
118. Wilson, Deirdre & Robyn Carston. 2007. A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In Noel Burton-Roberts (ed.), Pragmatics, 230–259. London: Palgrave. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Wilson%2C+Deirdre+%26+Robyn+Carston%2E+2007%2E+A+unitary+approach+to+lexical+pragmatics%3A+Relevance%2C+inference+and+ad+hoc+concepts%2E+In+Noel+Burton%2DRoberts+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Pragmatics%2C+230%E2%80%93259%2E+London%3A+Palgrave%2E)
119. Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 2002. Truthfulness and relevance. Mind 111(443). 583–632. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/111.443.583. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/111.443.583)
120. Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 2004. Relevance theory. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory L. Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Wilson%2C+Deirdre+%26+Dan+Sperber%2E+2004%2E+Relevance+theory%2E+In+Laurence+R%2E+Horn+%26+Gregory+L%2E+Ward+%28eds%2E%29%2C+The+handbook+of+pragmatics%2C+607%E2%80%93632%2E+Oxford%3A+Blackwell%2E)
121. Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 2012. Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO978113902837 0. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo978113902837)
122. Wisniewski, Edward J. 2010. On using count nouns, mass nouns, and pluralia tantum: What counts? In Francis Jeffry Pelletier (ed.), Kinds, things, and stuff: Mass terms and generics, 166–190. Oxford University Press: Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195382891.003.0009. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195382891.003.0009)
123. Wisniewski, Edward J., Mutsumi Imai & Lyman Casey. 1996. On the equivalence of superordinate concepts. Cognition 60(3). 269–298. https://doi.o rg/10.1016/0010-0277(96)00707-X. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(96)00707-x)
124. Wisniewski, Edward J., Christopher Lamb & Erica Middleton. 2003. On the conceptual basis for the count and mass noun distinction. Language and Cognitive Processes 18(5-6). 583–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960 344000044. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960)
125. Zarcone, Alessandra. 2014. Event knowledge and models of logical metonymy interpretation. Universität Stuttgart. https://doi.org/10.18419/opus-339 1. Ingrid Lossius Falkum Centre for the Study of Mind in Nature (CSMN) P. O. Box 1020 Blindern 0315 Oslo, Norway i.l.falkum@ifikk.uio.no [↗](https://doi.org/10.18419/opus-339)