In the 80s, Chad Hansen proposed the mass noun hypothesis while analyzing the Chinese way of thought. What follows is the essential content of his proposal.
First, in pre-Han China, there existed only a mass noun, and no countable noun. Any word except noun is just an equivalent of either material or mass. The ancient Chinese is different from the Western languages in that the latter are capable of expressing abstract things, not the former. Second, since there is countable noun . Absent countable noun, the ancient Chinese expresses any word that embodies individual physical object in a different manner from the way it expresses any word that contains abstract elements. Otherwise, the ancient Chinese is almost incapable of referring to any individuals. Therefore, any philosophical theory expressed using this kind of language finds itself hard to contrive a theory of ontology that contains abstract elements.
Embracing the foregoing distinction, Chad Hansen exemplifies his hypothesis by presenting his own analysis of the The White Horse Dialogue (Baima Lun)
In this article, the focus is laid on determining whether the ancient Chinese has only a mass noun, not other forms of noun. Many Western scholars who have worked on mass nouns now have admitted to the fact that there is no standard by which to distinguish mass noun from countable noun. The implication of this newfound approach being that the ancient Chinese, thus, has not only mass nouns but also individual nouns or countable nouns.
In ancient Chinese, we can easily find some nouns that are not mass nouns, but ones that contain specific stuffs and yet do not negate the presence of abstract objects.
As a language, the Chinese language should be capable of not only expressing something non-material but also containing non-material words or expressions. Absent these key features, it cannot be accepted as a language. Thus, in ancient Chinese, there should be some nouns that are not mass nouns and yet have only specific stuffs and at the same time not negate the presence of abstract objects.
The Chinese language can express something abstract even if it has no corresponding non-material expressions.
Moreover, a particular feature of one language’s grammar may not predetermine the relevant expressions of the language at hand. This article also demonstrates that such built-in feature of Chinese grammar also may not preedestine substantive ontology.