1

Testing for the linguistic relativity hypothesis (Whorf 1956),
previous studies have found that speakers of different
languages conceptualize objects and substances in different
ways (Lucy 1992; Imai and Gentner 1997; Athanasopoulos 2006,
2008; Sera and Goodrich 2010).

Studies conforming with the universal ontology position have
revealed that, even when a language does not grammatically
encode the count/mass noun distinction, speakers, by default,
categorise objects by shape and substances by material (Soja
et al. 1991; Imai and Gentner 1997; Athanasopoulos 2006,
2008).
2

Conforming with Radden and Dirven (2007:64), objects can
be discriminated from substances by relying on three
complementary conceptual criteria: i) boundedness, ii)
internal composition, and iii) countability.

Objects and substances can also be distinguished on a
number of grammatical attributes as well (Radden and
Dirven 2007:66). For example, count nouns, unlike mass nouns,
accept plural marking.

In the study, the ontological distinction between objects and
substances, as being encoded in the grammatical
count/mass noun distinction, is examined in two languages,
namely in Greek and in English, with respect to the way this
distinction is conceptualised and then expressed by speakers
of the two corresponding languages.
3

Comparing Greek with English, the grammatical count/mass
noun distinction is displayed in both languages (Tsoulas 2006,
2007; Athanasopoulos 2008; Athanasiadou 2009).

A binary number system is applied to both languages, where
count nouns obtain both a singular and a plural form and
can directly be preceded by numerals.

Regarding mass nouns, they behave similarly in Greek and in
English, in that numerals cannot precede some instances of
mass nouns (e.g., ?Aγórasa δío záxares ‘?I bought two
sugars’). The relevant numeral needs to be followed by a kind
of unitizer in order for the mass noun to be quantified (e.g.
Aγórasa δío koutiá záxari ‘I bought two boxes of sugar’).
4
Mass nouns in Greek are regularly and systematically
marked for plurality, unlike mass nouns in English. However, the
existence of plural mass nouns in Greek is not a superficial
linguistic convention, rather it contributes meaning. The
relevant meaning is that of ‘there is more amount of substance
than what would normally be expected or needed’ (Tsoulas
2007:18):
 Έrixes nerá sto pátoma
?You spilt waters on the floor (Tsoulas 2007:4)
 Gémises to spíti me xómata
?You filled the house with earths (Tsoulas 2007:4)
These contexts do not involve ‘substance-to-object
shifts’, named after Radden and Dirven (2007:71), since
water/earth is neither measured in portions nor different varieties
of water/earth are implied.
5
Linguistic Task:
Greek
and English monolingual native adult speakers first complete a
picture-naming task with familiar count and mass nouns from the
domain of food and drinks.
Pairs
of pictures are presented in one of three syntactic conditions: the
informative-syntax (a glass/some water), the neutral-syntax (the
glass/the water), and the no-label condition (no syntactic cues or
labels).
Potential
pluralisation of count and mass nouns is examined in the two
languages.
Prediction
1: Pluralisation of count nouns will systematically be applied
to both languages, irrespective of syntactic context.
Prediction
2: Greek, when compared to English, speakers, will pluralise
mass nouns more in all of the syntactic conditions. In Greek, thus, the
grammatical count/mass noun distinction is hypothesized to be less
strictly defined than in English.
6

Proportion of plural marking for count and mass nouns by the two
language groups across the syntactic contexts
Plural count nouns
Plural mass nouns
100
100
Informative
syntax
Neutral
syntax
No-label
80
60
40
20
60
40
20
0
0
Greek

80
English
Greek
English
The results of the verbal task clearly show that both language groups
significantly distinguish between count and mass nouns , confirming Tsoulas
(2006, 2007), since they all gave a significantly greater amount of plural
responses for count nouns than mass nouns across the syntactic conditions.
7
Proportion of plural marking for count and mass nouns by the two
language groups across the syntactic contexts
Plural count nouns
100
100
Informative
syntax
Neutral
syntax
No-label
80
60
40
20
Greek

80
60
40
20
0
0

Plural mass nouns
English
Greek
English
The two language groups pluralised count nouns to a similar
extent across the syntactic contexts.
However, Greek speakers pluralised mass nouns significantly
more than English speakers in neutral syntax as well as in a nonlinguistic context.
8

Concerning count nouns, our prediction, that count nouns will
be pluralised to a similar extent by Greek and English
speakers across syntactic contexts, was hence confirmed.

Regarding mass nouns ,Greek, when compared to English,
speakers pluralised mass nouns to a greater extent in neutral
syntax as well as in no-label. Our second prediction was thus
also confirmed, except when informative syntax was
provided.

Athanasopoulos (2008) is thus supported in claiming that the
count/mass distinction in nouns is less strictly marked in Greek
than in English.
9

The question hence should not be on whether mass
nouns are linguistically marked for number or not
within a language group, but on the degree and
regularity with which mass nouns are pluralised across
language groups and syntactic contexts.

Regarding syntax, informative syntactic cues invite
speakers to render the appropriate grammatical
meaning. That is, count syntax enhances pluralisation
of count nouns whereas mass syntax inhibits
pluralisation of mass nouns. However, ambiguous
syntax or non-existent syntactic cues/labels, allow for
cross-linguistic grammatical differences to be
revealed.
10

Seeking evidence for the linguistic relativity
hypothesis, (Whorf 1956), which claims that
language affects cognition, we cannot rely
on verbal data alone, but we also need
independent measures of non-verbal
cognition.

We hence conducted a non-verbal
cognitive task as well.
11

After participating in the linguistic task, monolingual
native adult Greek and English speakers also complete a
cognitive task, that is a triads matching task.

They are presented with novel object and substance
entities and are asked to choose between a shape or
material alternate the one that best resembles the target
entity.

Each participant is provided with one of three syntactic
contexts: an informative-syntax condition (a/some fep),
a neutral-syntax condition (the fep), and a no-label
condition.
12
Figure 1. Example triad from the ‘objects’ condition (a/the fep)
Figure 2. Example triad from the ‘substances’ condition (some/the fep)
13

It is typically assumed that, where there is a count/mass
noun distinction in the grammar of a language, subjects
will generalise to new instances by shape, when they
see an object, and by material when they see a
substance (Lucy & Gaskins 2001).

Prediction 1: Both language groups will categorise
objects similarly, that is by shape, since they similarly
pluralised count nouns in the linguistic task.

Prediction 2: However, since Greek, compared to
English, speakers pluralised mass nouns more in the
linguistic task, Greek speakers will categorize
substances by shape to a greater extent than English
speakers.
14
 Proportion of shape preferences for objects and substances by the
two language groups across the syntactic contexts
Object shape
Substance shape
100
100
80
80
Informative
syntax
Neutral
syntax
No-label
60

40
20
0
60
40
20
0
Greek
English
Greek
English
Both Greek and English speakers categorized objects
significantly more by shape and substances significantly more
by material in informative syntax.
 Our first prediction, regarding a similar preference for object
shape by the two language groups, was hence confirmed.

15

Proportion of shape preferences for objects and substances by the two
language groups across the syntactic contexts
Object shape
Substance shape
100
100
80
Informative
syntax
Neutral
syntax
No-label

60
40
20
0
Greek
English
80
60
40
20
0
Greek
English
However,
a greater preference for substance shape by Greek, when
compared to English, speakers was not observed. Our second
prediction was hence not confirmed.
Nevertheless, Athanasopoulos (2008) found that, in a non-linguistic
context, Greek speakers selected substance shape more, when
compared to English speakers.
16

The linguistic and the cognitive task were compared
using multiple regression analysis, comparing the two
language groups across the two tasks by collapsing the
syntax conditions within each language group.

The independent variables were plural responses for
count nouns and plural responses for mass nouns and
the dependent variable was shape scores for objects or
shape scores for substances.
17


When the dependent variable was shape scores for substances, the
overall regression was significant, F (2, 33) =5.85, MSE=1.50, p<.01
(R2=.26).
The beta weight for mass nouns (β=.51) obtained a significant value
(p<.01), showing that the more Greek participants pluralized mass
nouns in the linguistic task, the more they categorized substances by
shape in the cognitive task.
Table 1.Count and mass noun plural production as predictors and
substance shape as dependent variable across the two tasks for
Greek speakers.
B
SE B
β
Constant
.33
3.00
Mass nouns
.16
.05
.51*
Count nouns
-.01
.25
-.01
Note: *p<.01.
18

When the dependent variable was shape scores for substances, the
overall regression was not significant, F (2, 33) =1.67, MSE=1.43, p>.05
(R2=.09), suggesting no causal relationship between count/mass
noun plural production and preference for substance shape by
English speakers.
Table 2.Count and mass noun plural production as predictors and
substance shape as dependent variable across the two tasks for
English speakers.
B
SE B
β
Constant
1.40
.70
Mass nouns
.15
.10
.30
Count nouns
-.05
.06
-.15
19

In the linguistic task and in neutral syntax as well as in a nonlinguistic context, Greek speakers pluralised mass nouns more than
English speakers. Greek speakers differentiated hence between
count and mass nouns to a smaller extent than English speakers.
Support for the linguistic relativity position is hence supplied.

In the cognitive task and in informative syntax, the two language
groups performed similarly by selecting shape for objects and
material for substances. Support for the universal ontology position is,
thus, provided.

However, as the regression analyses revealed, the tendency to
pluralize mass nouns in Greek predicts the tendency by Greek
speakers to categorize substances based on shape. This clearly
shows that the cognitive behaviour of speakers is influenced by the
grammatical structure of their language as well, providing further
support for the linguistic relativity hypothesis (Whorf 1956).
20

The findings of the linguistic task, namely that
Greek, when compared to English, marks the
count/mass noun distinction less strictly in its
grammar, are hence supported by the results of
the regression analysis, where mass noun
pluralisation in Greek predicts the cognitive
preference for substance shape by Greek
speakers.

Informative syntax has been proved to coordinate
language-specific with universal categorization
patterns, since the two language groups, in both
tasks, performed similarly, when informative
syntactic cues were provided.
21

Metonymic relationships source from our conceptualising
system and lead to the employment of metonymic linguistic
expressions (Kövecses 2010), such as tría nerá ‘three waters’.
In the study, Greek speakers systematically employed such
metonymic expressions and this linguistic patterning
infiltrated their conceptualisation of substances as if they
were objects.

Linguistic convention has also been argued to mark crosslinguistic category boundaries (Athanasopoulos 2008), like
the convention of extensive mass noun pluralisation observed
in Greek. The latter convention has hence proved sufficient
to fine-tune the non-verbal categorisation preferences of
Greek speakers.
22

The findings of the present study converge with the view that
the cognitive behaviour of speakers of a language is
governed neither completely by ontological universalism nor
completely by linguistic relativism, but by an in-between
state (Imai and Gentner 1997; Imai 2000; Imai and Mazuka
2003; Athanasopoulos 2008). The interrelation between innate
knowledge and grammatical structure and of the latter two
variables with real-world composition could lead to a better
articulated knowledge of the human conceptualising system
(Imai 2000; Imai and Mazuka 2003).
23

Do young children, acquiring Greek, also pluralise mass
nouns?

To what extent are their non-verbal categorisation
preferences influenced by universal ontological
knowledge and to what extent by the specific linguistic
conventions of the language they are acquiring?

Are Greek and English children significantly
differentiated in their construal and expression of
individuation?
24

When English children overgeneralise the
plural morpheme from count to mass
nouns, as part of acquiring the plural, to
what extent do Greek children also display
this pattern, as part of acquiring the plural,
and to what extent as part of hearing plural
mass nouns, extensively employed in the
input they receive?
25

Athanasiadou, I. 2009. Count and Non-count Nouns in Greek and in English.
Unpublished Master Thesis. United Kingdom: University of Essex.

Athanasopoulos, P. 2006. Effects of the grammatical representation of
number on cognition in bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9,
89-96.

Athanasopoulos, P. 2008. Universal and language-specific patterns of
categorization. Glossa, 4, 51-72.

Imai, M. 2000. Universal ontological knowledge and a bias toward languagespecific categories in the construal of individuation. In S. Niemeier and R.
Dirven (Eds.), Evidence for linguistic relativity (pp. 139-160). Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Imai, M., and Gentner, D. 1997. A crosslinguistic study of early word meaning:
universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition, 62, 169-200.

Imai, M., and Mazuka, R. 2003. Re-evaluating linguistic relativity: Languagespecific categories and the role of universal ontological knowledge in the
construal of individuation. In D. Gentner and S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.),
Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 429464). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
26









Kövecses, Z. 2010. Metaphor: A practical introduction. 2nd edition. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Lucy, J. A. 1992. Grammatical categories and cognition. A case study of the
linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lucy, J. A., and Gaskins, S. 2001. Grammatical categories and the
development of classification preferences: A comparative approach. In M.
Bowerman and S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual
development (pp. 257- 283). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Radden, G. and Dirven, R. 2007. Cognitive English Grammar.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Sera, M. D. and Goodrich, W. 2010. Who thinks that a piece of furniture refers
to a broken couch? Count-mass constructions and individuation in English
and Spanish. Cognitive Linguistics, 21, 419-442.
Soja, N. N., Carey, S., and Spelke, E. 1991. Ontological categories guide
young children’s inductions of word meaning: Object terms and substance
terms. Cognition, 38, 179–211.
Tsoulas, G. 2006. Plurality of mass nouns and the grammar of number. Paper
presented at the 29th GLOW colloquium in Barcelona. April 6-8, 2006.
Tsoulas, G. 2007. On the grammar of number and mass terms in Greek.
Retrieved 23 March 2011 from
<http://thesource.dlp.mit.edu:16080/greeksynsym/papers/Tsoulas.pdf>
Whorf, B. L. 1956. Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of
Benjamin Lee Whorf (J. B. Carroll, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27