Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Wiley-Blackwell Publisher Login
amazon logo
More Info

New from Oxford University Press!


Language Planning as a Sociolinguistic Experiment

By: Ernst Jahr

Provides richly detailed insight into the uniqueness of the Norwegian language development. Marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of the Norwegian nation following centuries of Danish rule

New from Cambridge University Press!


Acquiring Phonology: A Cross-Generational Case-Study

By Neil Smith

The study also highlights the constructs of current linguistic theory, arguing for distinctive features and the notion 'onset' and against some of the claims of Optimality Theory and Usage-based accounts.

New from Brill!


Language Production and Interpretation: Linguistics meets Cognition

By Henk Zeevat

The importance of Henk Zeevat's new monograph cannot be overstated. [...] I recommend it to anyone who combines interests in language, logic, and computation [...]. David Beaver, University of Texas at Austin

Summary Details

Query:   Mass/Count Nouns
Author:  Lotfi Ahmad
Submitter Email:  click here to access email
Linguistic LingField(s):   Morphology

Summary:   Dear Linguists,
On 23 Apr 2001, I posted the query below (Vol-12-1116) concerning mass/count nouns:
A Colleague of mine (Farzad Sharifian at Cowen University) and I are conducting a research within the framework of cognitive linguistics concerning mass-count nouns in Persian. We noticed that in Persian Conversational Style, nouns that are normally mass ones (in a language like English) can be either mass or count depending upon the speaker's conceptualisation of the noun in question:
1. Ab-e darya bala umad.
water-of sea high came
''The sea level rose''
2. Maman ab-a-ro ba dasmal ye gushe jam kard.
Mum water-PL-DO with cloth a corner gather did
''Mum gathered the water in a corner with a cloth''
Apparently, a count noun conceptualisation is preferred in cases the speaker conceives of them as (a) particles/g rains/drops (scattered about), e.g. BERENJ-A 'rices': grains of rice (b) sth parcelled into countable units (hence, BERENJ-A 'rices' in reference to bags of rice), (c) multi-typal interpretation: BERENJ-A 'rices'--different rice varieties, (d) multi-locational interpretation: BERENJ-A 'rices'--rice grown in different parts of a single field/different fields, and (e) iterative: BERENJ-A 'rices'--meals of rice cooked
on different occasion.

Do you know of similar phenomena in other languages? If I receive enough feedback, I'll post a summary to the list.

I wish to express my gratitude to these colleagues who kindly provided insightful comments and helpful sources on the topic:
David Scarratt
Chris Beckwith
Harumi Moore
Frank Joosten
Jila Ghomeshi
Greville Corbett

Also thanks are due to the colleague who replied as
And these are the replies as I received:

A paper by Keith Allan in Language discusses similar phenomena in English:

Keith Allan, 1980, ''Nouns and countability'', Language 56, 541-567.

David Scarratt


Similar phenomena occur in English and in Uzbek (a language heavily influenced by Persian). Although is usually a mass noun in English, we can make it a count noun if referring to kinds or brands of water, or to the number of orders of water (or number of customers who need a glass of water) in a restaurant, for ex., ''five waters at table number ten'' means ''five glasses of water...'' (In fact restaurant usage is often highly metaphorical, as is well known.) Uzbek does the same thing. There is a discussion of count/mass questions like this in an article of mine on Uzbek classifiers in Anthropological Linguistics, 1998.


Anna Wierzbicka's ''Oats and wheat: the fallacy of arbitrariness'' in John Haiman's ''Iconicity in syntax'' will be a great read. The publisher is Benjamins (1985). 312-42.

Dr Harumi Moore
Lecturer in Japanese
School of Asian Studies
The University of Auckland

- ----------------------------------------------------------------

In English, mass nouns cannot be used quite so freely as count nouns. The general pattern, which must be part of an English-speaker's knowledge of the language,because every so often one hears examples of it from people or in situations that have no other motivation, is that using a mass noun as a count noun adds to it the meaning ''a kind of''. E.g. in the barbeque restaurants in this part of the USA, the menus will offer a plate of beef, or
sausage, or chicken for a certain price, and will then add that the customer can have ''all three meats'' for another dollar. But semantically confusing other situations do arise, however. ''Milk'' is clearly a mass noun, but when I am at the grocery store with my friend and she asks me to pass five ''milks'' to her from the cooler, I hand her five small bottles of milk. This may be sematically affected by the fact that ''coke'' (= Coca-Cola) is a mass noun but ''a coke'' means a bottle or glass containing the stuff. So the fact that I am handing her *bottles* of milk may confuse the issue.


* As far as I can see, in English, French and my native language (Dutch), type b and c are very common. They are often cited in the literature on the count-mass distinction.


e.g. Waiter, three coffees please!

e.g. Gargon, trois cafis s.v.p.!

e.g. Ober, drie koffies alsjeblieft!

The same with many other names for liquids.


e.g. Italian wines, Belgian beers

e.g. les vins blancs (= white wines)

e.g. witte wijnen (= white wines)

* Type e is unknown to me.

* In Dutch, type a is only marginally possible, I think, with a diminutive form:

e.g. spek (= bacon, mass noun), spekjes (= bacon-PL-DIM, 'little
pieces of bacon')

(In other cases, the diminutive form may be used to distinguish the type b and type c reading, e.g. drie bieren (= three beer-PL, type c reading (multi-typal)) vs. drie biertjes (= three beer-PL-DIM, type b reading (countable units))).

* Type d is also fairly marginal. Maybe what is sometimes called ''Abundanzplural'' in German (e.g. Die Wasser des Rheins, litt. the waters of the Rhine), can here be subsumed. Another example is an area with several ponds in my neighbourhood, called 'de Zoete
Waters' (litt. the Sweet Waters) (maybe also type b reading??).

Frank Joosten


- -------------------------------------------------------------

It looks like what you are describing is count/mass coercion and, as far as I know, every language exhibits this to a greater or lesser degree. For example, in English, you can talk about ''three coffees'' (cups of or types of) or ''three rices'' (orders of, in a restaurant). Pelletier (1991:497) notes:

whenever standard portions or standard uses for the stuff
corresponding to a mass term have been established, one will
find a count term for it: three beers, an ice cream, a
finely silted mud.

(I had this quote at hand because a student of mine just turned in a paper on count/mass coercion in Spanish - which is much freer than in English, apparently.) As for the term 'coercion', I don't know who came up with it or when. If you find out, I'd be interested in knowing.

There is another, more colourful, way in which 'coercion' has been characterized, (see Gillon on where these terms come from), namely as the ''Universal Grinder'' and the ''Universal Sorter''. The Universal Grinder turns count nouns into mass (as in ''I walked into the room and there was dog everywhere.'') The Universal Sorter turns mass nouns into count (''There were three rices on the table.'')

Jila Ghomeshi

Linguistics Department
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, MB
(204) 4749288


Gillon, Brendan (1992) ''Towards a common semantics for English count and mass nouns,'' Linguistics and Philosophy 15, 597-639.

Pelletier, F.J. (1991) ''Mass Terms.'' Handbook of Metaphysics and Ontology 2, 495-499.


There are several examples of the recategorization of mass nouns as count nouns in my recent ''Number'' (Cambridge University Press, 2000). They can be found through the index entry 'recategorization'. In particular, a good test for these uses (as opposed to affective uses) is that in languages with a dual this is typically available for
recategorization but not for affective use.

Greville Corbett
Linguistic and International Studies
University of Surrey
Surrey, GU2 7XH
Great Britain

For Persian-speakers, it is possible (under certain circumstances) to conceive of one and the same event as either mass or count construal depending upon one's cognitive orientation towards it:
(1) Roghanay-e machin dare mirize!
oils-of car is dripping
''The engine oil is dripping''
(In Persian, the verb does not need to agree with inanimate subject in number.)
(an atomistic conception of oil dripping down from the car engine)
=> some sense of fluidity of the oil; oil without internal tenacity.
(2) Roghan-e machin dare mirize!
oil-of car is dripping
''The engine oil is dripping''
(a holistic picture of the same event but this time the speaker conceives of oil as one single substance) => one of the components of the car (if we can think of oil as a component of a car after all) is to be gone, c.f. ''motor-e machin dare misooze!'' (The car engine is failing).
If you have noticed similar phenomena in other languages, please email me, and I'll post a summary to the list.
Ahmad R. Lotfi.
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Ahmad R. Lotfi, Ph. D
English Dept, Chair
Azad University (Khorasgan)
Esfahan, IRAN.

LL Issue: 12.1183
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2001
Original Query: Read original query


Sums main page