Abstract: The object/substance distinction is cognitive, while the count/mass distinction is linguistic. According to Chierchia (1998, 2010, 2015), the relevant semantic distinction is atomicity: a noun is atomic iff there exists a minimal unit that has the property denoted by the noun. Thus, the minimal unit of 'chair' is a chair, but there is no minimal unit of 'mustard'. In languages like English, which have a fully grammaticized count/mass distinction, the relationship between atomicity and morphosyntax is not direct: e.g., furniture is atomic yet mass, while chocolate(s) can be either mass or count. There is also much cross-linguistic variation. In contrast, in generalized classifier (GC) languages, where plural marking is optional, the relationship between atomicity and morphosyntax is direct: in Korean, only atomic nouns can combine with the plural marker -tul (Kim 2005, Choi et al. 2018); in Mandarin, atomic and non-atomic nouns combine with different types of classifiers (Cheng & Sybesma 1998). Research questions: (i) Does the morphosyntax of the count/mass distinction in a given language affect speakers' interpretation of nouns as atomic vs. non-atomic? OR (ii) Is interpretation driven by semantic universals, independently of language-specific morphosyntax? Prior literature: In a series of prior studies that used the quantity judgment task (Barner & Snedeker 2005; Barner et al. 2009; Inagaki & Barner 2009), native speakers of both plural-marking and GC languages were asked, "Who has more chairs/mustard/etc.?" and had the choice of either multiple small items (judgment by number) or two large items (judgments by volume). These studies found much cross-linguistic similarity but also found effects of language-specific morphosyntax on flexible nouns for speakers of English vs. French vs. Japanese (a GC language). However, the task confounded interpretation with morphosyntax as count nouns were presented in plural and mass nouns in singular form. Thus, any differences in interpretation could be directly due to the form in which the noun appeared. Methodology. In order to avoid this confound, we devised a new task, the Minimal Part Identification Task (MPIT), in which participants are given a noun in its bare form (no determiners, no plural marking) and asked 'Does [chair/chocolate/furniture/etc.] have a minimal unit?' The MPIT tested six noun categories (8 tokens per category), and was translated into English, Korean and Mandarin, with 20 native speakers tested per language. English and Korean speakers also took a Grammaticality Judgment Task (GJT) with sentences containing the same nouns as the MPIT; each noun was tested in both singular and plural forms (e.g., I read about string/strings in the library yesterday). The GJT was not used with Mandarin speakers, since the Mandarin plural marker is ungrammatical with all [-human] nouns. GJT results: as expected, English speakers judged only the bare singular form as grammatical for mass nouns, and only the plural - for count nouns, while flexible nouns like chocolate(s) were accepted in both forms. Korean speakers accepted the bare form for all nouns (since plural marking is always optional), and accepted the plural form more with atomic than with non-atomic nouns. MPIT results: despite the cross-linguistic differences in morphosyntax, the three groups exhibited very similar patterns of judgments, with the most 'minimal unit' judgments for object nouns, the least - for substance nouns, and in-between - for all types of flexible and object-mass nouns. The data were analyzed via mixed-effects models with category and language as fixed effects; significant interactions were followed by pairwise comparisons. While category had a significant effect, pairwise comparisons yielded almost no group differences. Discussion: We find that interpretation of a noun as atomic or not is very similar across languages. While interpretation affects morphosyntax (atomic nouns are more likely to be count and non-atomic ones - mass, across languages), the opposite is not the case: how we perceive objects vs. substances is not influenced by the nominal system of our language.