I will illustrate and discuss the extent to which grammars may vary vis-à-vis the mass/count distinction with three main phenomena and use this as a springboard for outlining a theory of semantic variation, with a universal logical basis. The first form of variation concerns the most widespread empirical test associated with the mass/count distinction, namely how noun phrases (NPs) combine with numerals. The second is that of the so called ‘fake’ mass nouns (like furniture). The third concerns alternations between mass vs. count interpretations of nouns like beer or chicken.

In this chapter, we will offer a new way of analysing the syntax and semantics of the mass/count distinction at the syntax-semantics interface, by synthesising the constructionist framework originating in Borer (2005) with the (lexicalist) `iceberg semantics' proposed in Landman (2011, 2016. We believe that this synthesis has several conceptual and empirical advantages over existing frameworks. It combines the flexibility and morphosyntax-driven nature of constructivism with an explicit role for human conceptual categories such as INDIVIDUAL and SUBSTANCE. It allows us to distinguish between different kinds of mass/count shifts and makes explicit why some of them are harder than others. Furthermore, it clarifies the distinction between stuff-reference, number neutrality and non-countability, three distinct (although interdependent) nominal properties that are often explicitly or implicitly conflated in existing accounts of the mass/count distinction.