What makes some countable and some uncountable?

[Stephen Jones]

Larry seems to have fallen in love with explaantions so elegant that the fact that they have nothing to do with reality is a blemish so minor it would be churlish to bring it up.

Lolwhites is talking rubbish, and the macho "I'm a real man so don't come to me with your nancy grammar books", doesn't make his explanations any more palatable.

First of all the delightful phrase "I'm drowning in cat" owes its charm to the fact that it is breaking the convetnito that the animal cat is countable unless you are referring to it as food (it is quite possible that a restaurant will bring you some more cat, though you probably would have asked for "some more rabbtit"). The truth is that lexical items have restrictions on them and poetry works by changing those restrictions. The seventeenth century English Metaphysical poets, or Gongora in Spain, were particularly adept at that, and I strongly recommend an analysis of Donne's "Nocturnal on St. Lucies Day", to see this used to stunning effect.

Now, sometimes the challenge to convention is so felicitious that the convention changes. One of the best known examples of this comes from the poem "Le Lac" by Lamartine in which he refers to the edges of the lake as "tes riants côteaux". Now in early 19th century French inanimate (or indeed aniimate non-human objects) are no more capable of laughing than they are in early 21st century English; that is to say the use of smiling or laughing is restricted to humans (though we do usne the opposite "unsmiling" to apply to both urban and non-urban landscapes, as well as to the DOS). However if you look in a French dictionary now you will find that pretty much the only permissiable word you can use to describe a landscape in French is "riant".

All lexical items have restrictions; countable or uncountable is just one of them, and although it is true that the restriction will disappear if enough people decide to ignore it, the restrictions are still there in most cases. You can eat a lot of beef, but not a lot of beefs, though you can put the latter in your pipe and smoke them. You can talk about "informaciones" in Spanish, but in English you must talk about "pieces of information" just as you talk about sets or data or pieces of data (only a dysfunctional and semi-educated pedant will claim that 'data' is plural, or that you can use the word 'datum' in English).

So, let's sum up. We have in English the qualities of countable and uncountable, and there are different grammatical rules for dealing with a word according to whether it is one or the other. There are also many words that can be both countable or uncountable, normally with a change context or meaning or both. Also any restriction on the use of a lexical item (and uncountable/countable is precisely that) can be ignored in English for special effect, and if enough people decide to do so then the restriction disappears from the language. The distincition between countable and uncountable exists in many other languages (probalby because it reflects an important aspect of reality) but the exact mapping is different. And if we want our students to use grammatical English we should point out the little entry in the dictionary that says whether something is a count noun or not.

[LarryLatham]

Revel said:
...but that does not help them with the task at hand, which is to identify nouns as countable or uncountable on the next exam they have at school, where, despite all of us here being right on the flexibility of use of nouns in each and between the two catagories, they will have to say that coffee is uncountable or get the question wrong. Oh, sad reality!

I say:
Unless we pressure the test and textbook writers of the world to recognize that they are misleading students and should mend their ways, this sad reality will continue into the next generation.

lolwhites has showed us here that few nouns are completely immune from being considered either as countable or not. What matters most is the thought in speakers' minds as they speak. Ditto for writers. Students will be better off for understanding this.

Larry Latham

[LarryLatham]

Stephen, you display great learning, and I respect that. But you are talking nonsense here. You contradict yourself. Your other arguments notwithstanding, you said:

Also any restriction on the use of a lexical item (and uncountable/countable is precisely that) can be ignored in English for special effect [close quote].

I think that says enough. That's all any of the rest of us have been arguing.

Larry Latham

[wjserson]

Although I rarely make many comments regarding these topics anymore, and although I have nothing to do witht he administration of this website, I'd also like to add that the egoistic manner in which you need to explain your point of view, Stephen, is rude, obnoxious and sometimes downright hostile. I remember someone (ok Larry) saying something about loosening up when discussing these subjects and I believe you should really consider this.

"Lolwhites is talking rubbish", and other agressive statements simply demonstrate how little patience you have in discussing linguistic topics when you could approach these topics in a much more productive manner. If you're as great a linguist/english teacher as you seem to let on, please loosen your tie, pop a pill and get back to aiding the less-expereienced ESL teachers that could still benefit from your knowledge.

wjserson

[lolwhites]

When I made my post I didn't realise I was being so controversial.


I'm glad noone takes issue with the example I posted. However, I can assure Stephen that I wasn't trying to be poetic when I said what I did; it just came to me for the reasons I outlined earlier. Nor did I ever say that lexical items didn't have restrictions on them; I simply proposed that the countable/uncountable distinction (and yes, I did say it exists) was a question of the physical qualities of the noun under question, coupled with the speaker's perception and choice. This make it different from masculine/feminine/neuter nouns in other languages, which, I hope we can agree, is usually arbitrary. When one learns Spanish, one needs to be told which nouns are masculine and which are feminine, whereas I've yet to meet a student who couldn't look at a melon and work out for themselves that it could be either depending on the situation. Rather than pointing students towards the dictionary to find out if a noun is countable or not, how about asking them to work out for themselves before looking in the dictionary?

I am heartened to see that he makes a diistinction between errors and unconventionality. Doesn't this just prove that the grammar of the language itself does not prohibit phrases that wouldn't get past an examiner? As for my explanation having nothing to do with reality, I went to great pains to point out that the count/uncount distinction is grounded in reality, and gave a real world example!!

Obviously, this concept is not easy to get across to lower level students. However, by presenting nouns as falling into one of two "classes" in English, we store up problems for ourselves later on. At the very least, make it clear that this is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. That way, students may be a little more open minded later on and not tell native speakers that they're not allowed to say "two coffees".

The bottom line is that the grammarians did not invent the language and present it to us. Rather, they tried to work out the rules by looking at the langauge, in much the same way that physicists and astronomers look at the universe and try to wotk out what the principles are. In the process, mistekes are inevitably made and rules need to be looked at again in the light of evidence.

I sincerely hope that Stephen's dismissal of any new thinking as "rubbish" is not prevalent throughout our esteemed profession. And I understand that we all have to get out students through exams, but aren't the exams the problem? If your only justification is "because the exam key/grammar book says so", you won't get very far.

[revel]

Good morning!

Oh, yes, those exams. Fortunately, this year I only have one "review" class where I have to re-explain grammar to kids who just don't get it, whose parents are over-worried because the son or daughter is not passing English at school. Last year I tried to help these same kids by using good firm linguistic techniques, but there just wasn't time to cement patterns and structures in their mouths so that they could identify simply by hearing if it were wrong or right, every fortnight they have a quiz, every month they have an exam and they must learn the material or will not pass.

And, though I don't want to generalize, I will go ahead and do so in saying that I have had more problems with students with preconceived notions about rules than with those who come "virgin" to my classes. I see that there are several of us who have studied Spanish as a second language, I maybe can even assume that some of us use Spanish on a daily basis to communicate (I for example, live in Spain). Just think back to when we were learning how to "construct" the subjunctive in Spanish, that long rule about the base form of the verb with the indicative endings of the other type of verb, following expressions like "I hope" or "I wish" but also used in other contexts where the reality is subjunctive....fifteen years later, that the gods, I don't have to run that long race to spit out a subjunctive sentence in Spanish, though from time to time I find myself thinking "it's an -ar verb, so I have to use the -er/-ir indicative ending....". Thanks to concentrated practice of the forms as well as day to day observation and use, I can pretty well use the subjunctive despite the grammar I studied two decades ago....

I was lucky, the only exam I had to pass was understanding the vegetable lady in the market in Barcelona when she told me how much the onions would cost me. The exam is indeed often the problem; however, I am not an activist and prefer to toil away in my little corner of the world, helping those I can and helping those that I can't.

peace,
revel.

[lolwhites]

"Then we turned our attention to comparing and reviewing the best of the most reputable places to end your home equity informations search."

Quote from a consumer magazine

QED?

[Stephen Jones]

If a consumer magazine did a consumer report on consumer magazines I'm sure the one you've found would not be recommended.

The only thing you've QEDed is that some journalists write crappy English. The sentence would be horrible even if he's written information. I'd be obliged if you could give the exact source.

And where does the idea that English divides nouns into two classes come from? As I have said before, it divides them into three classes, countable, uncountable, and both countable and uncountable.

You're quite correct to say that this is not rigid like the rules about gender in other languages, but to ask the students to think first won't work, because often it is arbitrary. You had to look very hard to find "informations" in English, but to a Spaniard the word is quite intuitive. Also there are often very clear distincitions in meaning when a word a count noun or a non-count noun.

I'm not dismissing new thinking as rubbish. I'm dismissing nont-thinking. And the distinciton between countable nouns and uncoutable nouns is not an invention of the dictionary or the grammar book, but grounded in the grammar of the English language.

You're "drowning in cat" will get past me as an examiner, but "home equity informations" won't and nor will "compund interests of 12%" and nor will wjserson, popping "much pill", however plausible an explanation of his posting it may be. And to continue with the hostility, let's have some murder and mayhem", or even a couple of murdters, but not a couple of mayhems.

No Larry, I don't contradict myself. The exception makes the rule, and your claim that we can forget about the rule becaue there are exceptions is the same as saying we should stop discussing and stop teaching.

[LarryLatham]

I don’t know where you get the idea that “the exception makes the rule.” How, exactly, does that happen? Aside from being a quaint saying, the statement sounds ridiculous. Rules that have many exceptions are not very good rules. You did contradict yourself, but you lack the grace to admit it.

Stephen, your attitude is really beginning to annoy me. You seem to be determined to perpetuate hostility here, despite the efforts of others to give you room to gracefully back off. You appear to have the arrogance to believe that you are the only one on this forum who knows anything. Well, I beg to differ. There are more than a few other people here who are at least your equal. You might do well to listen to them with more respect. There are things you could learn from them; about English, about teaching, and about participating in a useful discussion. You have the habit of misquoting people’s remarks, or deliberately refusing to grasp their intentions, and then attacking your own misquote. Cut it out. You are doing no one, least of all yourself, any favors with this attitude.

[Stephen Jones]

Dear Larry,
I have no intention of pretending there is not a distinction between count and non-count nouns in English just because you have chosen to be peeved.

You are the one who has chosen to be hostile. Lolwhites has made the statement

"Rather, English doesn't divide nouns into two classes, with a few that fall into both. Rather, any noun can be used in a mass or individual sense where the context demands (note the emphasis).

and you commented "Precisely! A wonderful explanation."


I then pointed out that this is not so. Most words in the English language do fall into the two classes, though the third class of words that can be both is quite large. And the distintion is often arbitrary. "News" and "Information" are uncountable (I suspect the example showing the opposite Lolwhites dug out was simply a typo). "Pill" is countable and so is "event". "Nonsense" is uncountable and however many ridiculous things you or I may say in our life we still have to talk about a lot of nonsense, and not ''a hundred nonsenses''. These distintinctions are often quite arbitrary, as can be seen by the fact that words that in English are uncountable are often countable in other languages, and an example of the arbitrariness is given by Revel who pointed out the difference between peas, beans and rice.

Now for special effect we can probably always find a way to break a grammatical rule or a lexical constraint, but that does not mean that the rule or constraint does not exist, so to suggest that it would be theoretically possible to construct a sentence in which every count noun can be used as a non-count noun, or vice-versa, does not alter the fact that most speakers of the English language do stay within the rails.

If you are saying that the group of nouns that can be count nouns or non-count nouns is much higher, and less clearly defined, than every many authorities suggest, I will be one hundred percent behind you. But to suggest that any noun can belong to any class is just asking your students to go around giving you lots of informations about the nonsenses that some boy speak after they pop too much pill.

Lolwhites has made a valid insight (though I would suggest that drowning in *beep* is a much more pleasant experience than drowning in cat) but he has overgeneralized from it, and you have apparently done the same.

I am not personally attacking you. In general you are probably more right than I am when describing things in this forum, and the last time I you pointed out I had fouled up I gave in gracefully, as you did on another occasion. And Lolwhites provides exceptionally insightful comments on particular examples.

But in this one case you and he have made a generalization that is unsustainable, and it is this erroneous generalization I am attacking, not you or he personally.



[/i][/b]

[Stephen Jones]

"drowning in *beep*" = drowning in p.u.s.s.y

Really there are only two classes of words in English. Those that get past the censor on Dave's and those that don't!

[Stephen Jones]

The actual statement Larry is 'it's the exception that proves the rule". It has a very sound basis of reason behind it, though not particularly applicable here.

[Stephen Jones]

Larry, I was just thinking about the time you graciously conceded a point to me, and it suddenly occured to me where it was.

It was in this very thread.

You are quite right, Stephen. I let myself get carried away without thinking it through carefully.

So it looks really like there are three catagories of nouns: (1) those that are undeniably always countable, (2) those that, by the nature of their meaning, cannot be counted (this subset I would expect to be rather small), and then (3) finally a third subset which can be used either way.

What I should have said in my post above is that this third subset is larger than many people think. It contains words which people might not ordinarily expect to be there.

I hate it when I put my foot in my mouth.
Thanks for the correction, Stephen.

Larry Latham




Now, you get some support for your initial position later, with an analagous example to lolwhites 'drowning in cat' "too much legs' but certainly nothing to warrant your jetisonning the position you state here, which is a model of clarity and to which I subscribe 100%, and still would do even if you weren't so nice to me in the post.

What is puzzling me is why you appear to have made a complete volte-face (on the grammatical point,not about being nice to me!) , though I do accept your then accusing me of contradiciting myself as being an example of "do as I say and not as I do"

[Duncan Powrie]

Surely the key to understanding this area is to follow the white rabbit I mean the magical plural -s! As teachers, this might involve studying corpus findings and selecting which nouns are representative of being both [C] AND , and which are PROBABLY (as far as attested examples go) ONLY (I am not sure if nouns which are only [C] are the ones that would constitute a problem for students!). (A discussion of this, and examples of "surgerieS" (="medical operation") can be found in Sidney Landau's Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography (2nd edition)). We would then have two groups of nouns, one containing nouns such as "information" and "furniture", which (at least as far as attested usage can confirm as a matter of fact, for those who care) are only, and might need to be memorized as such by students for tests, and the other nouns such as "cheese/cheeses" and "wine/wines". The only problem then would be students wanting to know e.g. whether to say e.g. "Two teas, please" or "Two cups of tea" (as lolwhites noted in his first posting here), but this might be best presented to students as a choice of whether to omit (ellipt - is this a real verb?) "cups of", in which case the plural -s can just be (seen to be) moved to "tea"! In this way, students might think about which words to count, rather than being fixated upon whether A word can be "counted" or not (what a difficult notion!). I apologize if this isn't academic enough for some of you, but I don't have my Chalker, Biber et al, COBUILD etc to hand right now, and didn't want to refer specifically to past postings re. their academic merits, because they have become a little too intertwined with the "discourse of argument", and the two can be a bit hard to unravel at times for onlookers! I'd prefer to hear how whatever understandings people have come to about grammar have been (or tried to be!) pedagogically organized! That being said, I wouldn't want to see this forum become too divorced from theory/metalanguage/thinking, no "Here's a good activity: you get the students to...", please!

[Stephen Jones]

As far as I can tell Larry and lolwhites are, or were, claiming that there is no distinction between Count ant uncount nouns.

The problem I see with your follow the white rabbit is that it is likely to lead us down a hole to a land where things are topsey-turvey,

Because there are a certain number of words ending in "s" that are unciountable (and as has been said dictionaries for native speakers muddly the waters by saying they are plural nouns that function as a singular0.

"News" is the obvious word, but how about "high-jinks".I suspect that the objections lolwhites and revel have is more to certain words being commonly misclassified (coffee and tea) are the two that sping to mind, than to the system itself.

The analytical approach that lolwhites suggests falls down with abstract words. It is pure convention that we show anger (uncountable) or throw a tantrum (countable), or that mental depression is uncountable but disappointments can be enumerated.