What makes some countable and some uncountable?

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:15 pm

Stephen, granted "half a dozen airs of mystery" would be odd, but what about "airs and graces"?

I don't think Larry wants to tell students air is countable (he was actually talking about rice) - indeed, he would probably say it is usually uncountable - but that being too this or that, one or the other is bound to set you up for a fall...the best we can do perhaps is to let the students consult a lot of COMMON examples and see for themselves, if they ever doubt our teaching. Regarding the rice vs rices, the addition of the -s is a bit hard to pronounce, isn't it...is this a phonological constraint, or a grammatical one, or are they intertwined?! But you could catch people saying it I'm sure if you staked out enough takeaways! I guess the "rule" of adding -s sometimes overrides us, even when we think we know better and would prefer to say something else and remain consistent and "standard" in our speech...

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:27 pm

You put on airs - it's a set phrase, like "taking the waters".

You may be right about rice in this example.

However we can teach the construction "five tomato soup(s)" as it comes up all the time and they are likely to hear it.

Some of the other examples we have given are best explained as lexical items.

But we must not zoom in on the examples where teh concept of countabily and uncountability is muddied, and forget that outside of that very small lexical area we are focused on there are the other 955 of words, where the difference between countable and uncountable is very clearly defined..

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 7:57 am

Sorry guys,

I have been a bit under the weather for a few days, and haven't felt like tuning in.

Well, Stephen, I'd challange you about the 'three fried rice'/ 'three fried rices' selection. In the United States, I'd bet on the second as being more common, if the waiter is a native English speaker.

But I guess the main point is, as Duncan has suggested, that in all likelihood, the best route to take with our students is to show them examples from genuine (corpus) English. No doubt, "rice" would show up as noncount the majority of the time. However, I think it is often most instructive for students (as well as for teachers, for that matter) to see some of the UNcommon, but still viable and 'correct', uses of certain constructions. It helps to show the flexibility of the language, and how it can be used in non-standard ways to say what you mean. We must remember that a speaker or writer is in a commanding position. He has the ideas, and the language does not/should not impose restrictions on those ideas. It then is up to him to decide how to code the ideas in English. Sometimes, that may call for using non-standard constructions. I wouldn't suggest teaching that 'rice' is countable...but neither would I suggest teaching that it can never be that way.

Larry Latham

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:28 pm

Hi Larry, glad you're back and hope you're feeling better.

I think the problem with this construction is that it is taught so early on in language learning. William in another post talks about teaching there are/ there is to eight year olds in Hong Kong. Simplification does tend to be the order of the day.

I still am in favour of a dual standard. Teach the students to be strict with output but liberal with input (like the rule for dealing with HTML on web sites

).

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 2:49 pm

Hmm I'd try to be strict (with myself) with the input (try to find some kind of principle or balance in selecting, organizing and presenting it), I think there is too much "liberty" taken still by teachers! As for output, I don't know if you can be strict...you can only hope it conforms to the input...anyway you'd probably end up having to be "strict" with output (i.e. correct not just "mistakes" but doubt, confusion etc) if you are not strict with the input (I posted something in this vein on the "There is/are" thread, but please don't feel any of you need to reply to that, it is too long and waffly!).

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 6:03 pm

Hi guys. I see this is just gonna run & run.

I suspect there may be a division between those of us who teach in an English-speaking country and those who don't. I'm not sure I can "be strict with the input" as I work in the UK and my students are exposed to English all the time so I can't control what they hear and read (not that I wish to be able to!). That's why they find that what they hear is often so at odds with what the coursebooks say. When I taught abroad, pretty much the only English that students were exposed to came from me and the coursebook.

As for homing in on extreme examples, I agree it's not something I'd do with my elementary students. However, as teachers and linguists, I think we can gain a lot more insight into how our language really works by pushing it to its limits (which is how this debate started). To quote Michael Lewis, "even the unusual uses can be analysed and understood...providing the observer looks at the question objectively and concentrates on the meaning of the words and structures used."

So, I agree with Stephen about being liberal with the input, though they could become less strict with the output as their level improves.

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 6:17 am

lolwhites wrote:I'm not sure I can "be strict with the input" as I work in the UK and my students are exposed to English all the time so I can't control what they hear and read (not that I wish to be able to!). That's why they find that what they hear is often so at odds with what the coursebooks say.

I think you'll have to be more STRICT (I don't mean stingy) with (selecting) the input if you don't want it to be "at odds" with what students will encounter!? As you say, not many coursebooks are not actually much good when it comes to being accurate (and this often means the activities they contain are often lacking something...).

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 11:54 am

Actually, I'm quite glad that the students hear stuff that's at odds with what the coursebooks say. It gives plenty of scope for exploration of structure and meaning and helps them to get away from the "jigsaw-categorisation" school of grammar.

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 1:08 pm

Heh, I'll agree with that!

Of course, the students are going to hear variation...I just hope they have learnt enough notes and melodies to understand and appreciate that such variation is all just "variation upon deeper themes" (to use a musical analogy)!

I am sure we are basically speaking the same language, and wouldn't be so egotistical as to keep on trying to impose my own nuances/megalomaniacalmeta-language!