A Proficiency student who has been studying English in the UK for 2 years came up with a question about countable and uncountable nouns. She'd often heard people say "two coffees" or "three tomato soups", and asked me if this was correct (she's a bit of what I call a "grammar lawyer"). Surely, she argued, "coffee" was uncountable and so you should say "two cups of coffee". Or maybe, she speculated, "two coffees" was a newer, more debased form of the older, and therefore more correct, "two cups of coffee".
I thought about this and came to the conclusion that the problem is that students are taught the concept as two classes of noun with some overlap "cake, melon etc". I further felt (though I hadn't really thought about it before), that any noun can be used in a countable or uncountable sense if the meaning is clear (hence two coffees is fine as the meaning is obvious). That's why we say "book shop" not "books shop" even though the shop (hopefully) has more than one book on sale. We're thinking of the books as whole mass, not hundreds of individual items.
I've never seen this mentioned in a grammar book; they stick to the "countable" versus "uncountable" nouns distinction. I suspect this is because they feel the concept of two classes of noun is easier for many students to grasp, particularly if their own language has masculine and feminine nouns. Aren't the books missing the point?
Countable and uncountable
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
HI Lol
Don't know that the books are missing the point - but when countable/uncountable is first dealt with, usually at pre-int level, they certainly skate delicately around it. I guess it's felt that those are complications the elementary learner could do without.
But you're right - it would make some sense to revisit this later, especially as "two beers" or whatever is going to be a pretty common utterance.
Cheers, Al
Don't know that the books are missing the point - but when countable/uncountable is first dealt with, usually at pre-int level, they certainly skate delicately around it. I guess it's felt that those are complications the elementary learner could do without.
But you're right - it would make some sense to revisit this later, especially as "two beers" or whatever is going to be a pretty common utterance.
Cheers, Al
Books only capture a certain amount of the linguistic reality. A grammar book would probably encourage a robot-like use of uncountables ('I'll take (two pints of beer), please'), instead of what native speakers say ('I'll take (two beers), please'). A student of mine once corrected me saying that it's grammatically incorrect to say 'a beer'.
I'd say it's productive for students of English to learn the former before applying the latter, but without informing of the latter after a certain level of language competence is rediculous. Let students know what's really used in anglophone communities once they gain a certain level of english speaking.
Normally with an uncountable we develope a countable containment unit that these substances are found in. But there are so many nouns that make exceptions (thanks mostly to the service industry) out of the uncountable rule that books can't even catch up. French fries are countable. We can count individual fries, but we usually use the noun in a different form and never use the 'containment' aspect like 'glass', 'pint', 'cup', etc:
'One large fry' vs 'One large box of fries'
'Two large fries' vs 'Two large boxes of fries'
(what would a grammarian place the fries in anyway?)
Uncountable consumable substances become countable when it is already understood how the substance is served. Sometimes the speaker doesn't care what the uncountable is served in :
'One small Coke' vs 'One small plastic cup of Coke'
'One coffee with two sugars and two creams' vs
'One cup of coffee with two bags of sugar and two containers of cream (inserted into the coffee)'
When the speaker can assume that the receiver understands certain language aspects, such as in the examples above, without causing difficulties, these examples become the norm when they offer a certain amount of efficiancy. Once these become the norm, they become equally as correct as the rules in the grammar texts even though it'll take 3 decades for the texts to catch up.
But again, teaching the basics so that students become capable of creating the more up-to-date examples is absolutely necessary and I would never discourage such teachings of the differences between uncountable and countables.
(I'll probably take a beating from one or two people in this forum for what I said, so I got to make sure I don't come across as a grammar heel)
I'd say it's productive for students of English to learn the former before applying the latter, but without informing of the latter after a certain level of language competence is rediculous. Let students know what's really used in anglophone communities once they gain a certain level of english speaking.
Normally with an uncountable we develope a countable containment unit that these substances are found in. But there are so many nouns that make exceptions (thanks mostly to the service industry) out of the uncountable rule that books can't even catch up. French fries are countable. We can count individual fries, but we usually use the noun in a different form and never use the 'containment' aspect like 'glass', 'pint', 'cup', etc:
'One large fry' vs 'One large box of fries'
'Two large fries' vs 'Two large boxes of fries'
(what would a grammarian place the fries in anyway?)
Uncountable consumable substances become countable when it is already understood how the substance is served. Sometimes the speaker doesn't care what the uncountable is served in :
'One small Coke' vs 'One small plastic cup of Coke'
'One coffee with two sugars and two creams' vs
'One cup of coffee with two bags of sugar and two containers of cream (inserted into the coffee)'
When the speaker can assume that the receiver understands certain language aspects, such as in the examples above, without causing difficulties, these examples become the norm when they offer a certain amount of efficiancy. Once these become the norm, they become equally as correct as the rules in the grammar texts even though it'll take 3 decades for the texts to catch up.
But again, teaching the basics so that students become capable of creating the more up-to-date examples is absolutely necessary and I would never discourage such teachings of the differences between uncountable and countables.
(I'll probably take a beating from one or two people in this forum for what I said, so I got to make sure I don't come across as a grammar heel)
A few comments:
lolwhites: If I see "melon" on a menu, I think it's the non-count melon (as in some melon) since it wasn't offered as "a melon" in which case that would be the whole meal, as you explained. It's that category of food that can make for some interesting statements. ("I ate a cake" or "I ate a turkey" [stomachache in the offing, no doubt.])
With respect to the question of "bookstore," I usually teach the "noun used as an adjective is singular" rule. Hence we get "cable car, shoestore, grocery store", and when numbers are added, we also have "five-cent stamps, five-dollar bills, two-hour classes, nine-week sessions," etc.
lolwhites: If I see "melon" on a menu, I think it's the non-count melon (as in some melon) since it wasn't offered as "a melon" in which case that would be the whole meal, as you explained. It's that category of food that can make for some interesting statements. ("I ate a cake" or "I ate a turkey" [stomachache in the offing, no doubt.])
With respect to the question of "bookstore," I usually teach the "noun used as an adjective is singular" rule. Hence we get "cable car, shoestore, grocery store", and when numbers are added, we also have "five-cent stamps, five-dollar bills, two-hour classes, nine-week sessions," etc.
Well Roger, I suppose that with your theory each price on the menu is ungrammatical as well, right? I mean, they only state a number without a phrase or sentence attached : why don't they say "This item costs ____." anywhere in the menu?
Answer: There isn't any need to attach any sort of article to the menu items. They're like titles of movies, music albums or books which don't always need to be structured as noun phrases : "Star Wars" (like 'noodles with a wine sauce') has no article, neither does "Lord of the Rings". Michael Jackson's "Thriller" doesn't. "Freinds", "Roots", or the television show "Raw" by the WWE...
Do we really need to suggest that the industry add 'the' or 'some' to these names to make them 'grammatically correct' when society has already accepted them?
At the same time, suggesting to students that they add these aspects to each noun in a menu is a good way to facilitate their understanding at the beginner level. Eventually, like native speakers, they'll learn the true rules that native speakers apply to the ("short changed")everyday use of language instead of what a book states.
Answer: There isn't any need to attach any sort of article to the menu items. They're like titles of movies, music albums or books which don't always need to be structured as noun phrases : "Star Wars" (like 'noodles with a wine sauce') has no article, neither does "Lord of the Rings". Michael Jackson's "Thriller" doesn't. "Freinds", "Roots", or the television show "Raw" by the WWE...
Do we really need to suggest that the industry add 'the' or 'some' to these names to make them 'grammatically correct' when society has already accepted them?
At the same time, suggesting to students that they add these aspects to each noun in a menu is a good way to facilitate their understanding at the beginner level. Eventually, like native speakers, they'll learn the true rules that native speakers apply to the ("short changed")everyday use of language instead of what a book states.
I'm not convinced that "melon" on a menu is an ungrammatical short-cut. I suspect an in-depth study of menus, letters etc going through the ages would show that nouns have always been used this way.
Another anecdote: when my two cats decided to sit on me at the same time I remarked "I'm drowning in cat" (i.e. the two felines conceptualised as one whole mass of fur, claws and whiskers rather than two individual moggies). I hope noone's going to suggest I can't speak my own language.
"Melon" on an menu is in no way "ungrammatical"; it just doesn't fit the "rules" taught in Elementary textbooks, which are in themselves oversimplifications as it's generally felt that the students would be confused if we told them the truth. Then teachers accept these rules as gospel and have to invent extra complications later on to fit the original "rule".
Which of these would look strange on a menu: "melon", "some melon" or "pieces of melon"?
Another anecdote: when my two cats decided to sit on me at the same time I remarked "I'm drowning in cat" (i.e. the two felines conceptualised as one whole mass of fur, claws and whiskers rather than two individual moggies). I hope noone's going to suggest I can't speak my own language.
"Melon" on an menu is in no way "ungrammatical"; it just doesn't fit the "rules" taught in Elementary textbooks, which are in themselves oversimplifications as it's generally felt that the students would be confused if we told them the truth. Then teachers accept these rules as gospel and have to invent extra complications later on to fit the original "rule".
Which of these would look strange on a menu: "melon", "some melon" or "pieces of melon"?
Oh Roger, I forgot to take issue with your "no sentences, just phrases" comment. Why should a menu be written in sentences? Are you really saying that menus, to be correct, should read thus:
There are some starters.
There is some melon.
There are some eggs.
There is some soup of the day.
etc.....?
What happened to the concept of language appropriate to the contect?
There are some starters.
There is some melon.
There are some eggs.
There is some soup of the day.
etc.....?
What happened to the concept of language appropriate to the contect?
Yes, what happened to "language appropriate to its context"? I did not say this "ungrammaticalness" of the language in a menu is 'inappropriate" to its own context; the context here may indeed presuppose that the reader is familiar with certain linguistic devices such as nouns devoid of any qualifiers or quantifiers to which the reader of a novel or other literary products or even common speech would be entitled.
Surely a menu is a text, and texts are literary products, yet they do not fall into the same category as reports or short stories. They are written with a specific readership in mind to whom one may speak in a more economic way.
There are many variations of this kind of communication - taxi drivers tend to be laconic and it may suffice to simply tell them ""the Hyatt!" More polite passengers would add "please!", while still more formal people would say "Please, drive me to the Hyatt on Malibu Rd.!"
But what's this ruckus all about? I made a suggestion - it might be farfetched or even wrong. It might be on target. I have seen menus that read "150 grammes of lean beefsteak" and I have seen drinks advertised for in drinks lists as "3 ounces of whiskey with lemon" (not 'melon').
Surely a menu is a text, and texts are literary products, yet they do not fall into the same category as reports or short stories. They are written with a specific readership in mind to whom one may speak in a more economic way.
There are many variations of this kind of communication - taxi drivers tend to be laconic and it may suffice to simply tell them ""the Hyatt!" More polite passengers would add "please!", while still more formal people would say "Please, drive me to the Hyatt on Malibu Rd.!"
But what's this ruckus all about? I made a suggestion - it might be farfetched or even wrong. It might be on target. I have seen menus that read "150 grammes of lean beefsteak" and I have seen drinks advertised for in drinks lists as "3 ounces of whiskey with lemon" (not 'melon').
But by stating the following, Roger :
"Surely a menu is a text, and texts are literary products, yet they do not fall into the same category as reports or short stories. They are written with a specific readership in mind to whom one may speak in a more economic way. "
Whose grammar are you applying when stating that :
""Melon" - and "noodles in a wine sauce" - are ungrammatical items on menus"
By stating that a menu would 'fall under it's own categroy with specific readership', does it not have it's own rules and regulations? If it is under it's own category, than we cannot apply the rules of 'reports' and other literary forms to menus. They cannot be ungrammatical if they fall under their own type of literary form where nouns with no qualifier are perfectly acceptable. If you apply the grammar rules of menus and not those of novels, than there's nothing ungrammatical about them.
It sounds like you're saying "Menus are sometimes ungrammatical even though they fall under there own category where such rules are accepted." Quite a confusing and contradicting statement, isn't it?
"Surely a menu is a text, and texts are literary products, yet they do not fall into the same category as reports or short stories. They are written with a specific readership in mind to whom one may speak in a more economic way. "
Whose grammar are you applying when stating that :
""Melon" - and "noodles in a wine sauce" - are ungrammatical items on menus"
By stating that a menu would 'fall under it's own categroy with specific readership', does it not have it's own rules and regulations? If it is under it's own category, than we cannot apply the rules of 'reports' and other literary forms to menus. They cannot be ungrammatical if they fall under their own type of literary form where nouns with no qualifier are perfectly acceptable. If you apply the grammar rules of menus and not those of novels, than there's nothing ungrammatical about them.
It sounds like you're saying "Menus are sometimes ungrammatical even though they fall under there own category where such rules are accepted." Quite a confusing and contradicting statement, isn't it?
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Great discussion, guys. I feel proud of all of you. This is much more important than just a debate on an internet board to be forgotten after a few turns. It's the beginning of a new enlightenment in language learning and teaching. Some of the conventional wisdoms of times past are coming under fire. What is beginning to emerge, among other ideas, is:
1. Some of the grammatical "rules" teachers and students find in grammar books are either too simple, too complicated, or just plain wrong.
2. Nouns themselves are not inherently grammatically "count" or "uncount". It most often depends on how the words are being used, and the skillful user may choose to use them cleverly in non-standard ways.
3. What may be grammatical in one context may be quite awkward in another, and hence inappropriate (essentially ungrammitical).
4. Language users always tend to be economical in their utterances. People say just as much as is needed in the given communicative situation, and no more. Indeed, more would seem strange. Same idea works in writing, hence the above discussion about menus.
There is much more, but this is a start. Bravo to all of you for being the leaders that you are in this arena. It must be clear to all of you that there are things with conventional language teaching that are not as good as they could be. Many intelligent people study English for years without gaining as much proficiency as they ought to achieve. Perhaps what we are doing as teachers can be simplified or corrected to be less confusing, allowing students to gain confidence and skill faster. Although clearly some people have managed to master English using the teaching methods of the past, perhaps they have tended to be especially talented linguistic anomalies --certainly not the norm. Changes in our methods may eventually come from discussions like this one that would allow more students to gain more faster. I certainly hope so. I suspect that the students who are lucky enough to have teachers like you all are already doing better than they might have before computer analysis of English helped us learn much more about the language than was previously known, and has made mince meat of some formerly 'self-evident' assumptions (like what is countable and what is not).
Just keep going! All the best, and good luck.
Larry Latham
1. Some of the grammatical "rules" teachers and students find in grammar books are either too simple, too complicated, or just plain wrong.
2. Nouns themselves are not inherently grammatically "count" or "uncount". It most often depends on how the words are being used, and the skillful user may choose to use them cleverly in non-standard ways.
3. What may be grammatical in one context may be quite awkward in another, and hence inappropriate (essentially ungrammitical).
4. Language users always tend to be economical in their utterances. People say just as much as is needed in the given communicative situation, and no more. Indeed, more would seem strange. Same idea works in writing, hence the above discussion about menus.
There is much more, but this is a start. Bravo to all of you for being the leaders that you are in this arena. It must be clear to all of you that there are things with conventional language teaching that are not as good as they could be. Many intelligent people study English for years without gaining as much proficiency as they ought to achieve. Perhaps what we are doing as teachers can be simplified or corrected to be less confusing, allowing students to gain confidence and skill faster. Although clearly some people have managed to master English using the teaching methods of the past, perhaps they have tended to be especially talented linguistic anomalies --certainly not the norm. Changes in our methods may eventually come from discussions like this one that would allow more students to gain more faster. I certainly hope so. I suspect that the students who are lucky enough to have teachers like you all are already doing better than they might have before computer analysis of English helped us learn much more about the language than was previously known, and has made mince meat of some formerly 'self-evident' assumptions (like what is countable and what is not).
Just keep going! All the best, and good luck.
Larry Latham
I understand exactly what you mean Joanne, and of course that's one way it could be read. However, in thinking about menus and restaurant discussions (which I wouldn't have been thinking about if you hadn't brought it up, thank youJoanne wrote:Or how about, 'I'll have the steak' There's only one steak?
) we seem to use the "the" in another way. To me, it means "I'll take the choice listed as 'steak'."If there are two menu items, a porterhouse steak and a rib steak for example, you couldn't say, "I'll have the steak," but you could say "I'll have the rib steak."
So would you rather have the lasagne or the chicken?