Plural mass nouns and the compositionality of number

It is true that, as is well known since Allan (1980), mass and count are best
seen as preferences rather than absolute values for lexical items; for instance,
clothes cannot be governed by a numeral, but it tolerates the count quantifier
a few. Even so, the existence of plurals that, at the very least, share some
properties with mass nouns, raises questions about the chain of reasoning I
have sketched out above. In fact, the assumption that plural nouns must refer
to collections of individuals is simply wrong, even in languages where the
number category would appear to correlate straightforwardly with the
contrast between one and more than one. My first goal here will be to
substantiate this empirical claim (section 2). Secondly, I will address in
section 3 a theoretical question that cannot even be posed, let alone
answered, without realizing that plural nouns can be non-count: the relation
between semantic and morphological structure in mass plurals, whose
interpretation does not seem to accord with the interpretation of the plural
affix. How can a noun modified by this affix fail to denote non-singleton sets
and still retain a compositional interpretation? The answer is that mass plurals are indeed semantically plural, but
they refer to manifold complexes of non-individual parts. The familiar onemany
contrast of book vs. books is not a primitive, defining trait of plurality,
but a consequence of the semantics of the noun and of the way plurality
combines with it. Variation along either of these two dimensions can bring
about different readings—which are the empirical concern of this paper.