In this paper, I review major linguistic features of pidgins and compare them with those of a new artificial language named 'Unish'. I will show that although Unish is a constructed language, it is easy and natural by modeling pidgins. Furthermore, I argue that Unish is a proper form of language to carry the role of universal language in the globalization era.

Countability and plurality (or singularity) are basically marked in syntax or morphology, and languages adopt different strategies in the mass-count distinction and number marking: plural marking, unmarked number marking, singularization, and different uses of classifiers. Diverse patterns of grammatical strategies are observed with cross-linguistic data in this study. Based on this, it is concluded that although countability is not solely determined by the semantic properties of nouns, it is much more affected by semantics than it appears. Moreover, semantic features of nouns are useful to account for apparent idiosyncratic behaviors of nouns and sentences.

The plural morpheme -tul in Korean has been discussed to have two readings: a pluralizer and a distributor. A less discussed usage oftul is that it may be attached to a collection term to derive the member reading of a collection. However, not all terms that are considered as collective nouns are subject to individualization by -tul. Thus, it must be discussed which nouns are individualized and what properties they share. This study presents four tests to define authentic collection terms and proposes that -tul has an additional reading of member specification function.

Various linguistic phenomena may serve a basis for the classification of languages and nominal forms make part of the criteria for the classification. In this study, two major approaches are closely compared for language typology based on nominal forms. Chierchia (1998a, b) assumes that morpho-syntactic features should be crucial in determining the denotations and grammatical categories of NPs. He suggests three classificatory categories with the notion of nominal mapping parameters. Contrastingly, the OT analysis of de Swart & Zwarts (2009 do not assume that morpho-syntactic features should be collapsed with countability and plurality. They propose several general constraints governing nominal forms and argue that different ordering of the constraints in optimality accounts for different nominal forms crosslinguistically. I have shown that the OT Eun-Joo Kwak Department of English Language and Literature, Sejong University 98 Gunja-dong, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul 143-747, Korea Phone: +82-2-3408-3633; Email: ejkwak@sejong.ac.kr Received September 8, 2011; Revised October 30, 2011; Accepted November 17, 2011. 102 Typological Accounts for Nominal Forms analysis provides an appropriate framework to categorize languages systematically.

Countability and number marking are basically specified by morpho-syntactic structures. However, they are closely related with the denotations of noun phrases. Hence, it needs to be scrutinized (i) whether syntax and semantics are interrelated to mark the relevant information, and (ii) in what way they are. In this study, we will review diverse linguistic data to analyze patters for countability and number marking. Finally, it will be concluded that syntax and semantics are deeply intertwined each other even in languages where countability and number are not explicitly marked or marked in the opposite ways of nominal denotations.