When the Mass Was Counted:
English as Classifier and Non-Classifier Language*
Junichi Toyota
In this paper, the counting system in English is analysed diachronically, especially interms of classifier and non-classifier language types. Earlier English did not make aclear distinction between mass and count nouns, and such a distinction emerged
around late Middle English/early Modern English. Proto-Indo-European, the parent
language of Present-day English, lacked such a distinction and the state of earlier
English can be considered as the residue of Proto-Indo-European. The development
could be partly a result of language contact particularly with French or Latin, but it
is also possible that the speakers’ world-view had changed, which triggered thechange in counting system. It is also suggested that by studying other grammaticalfeatures, such as locational or temporal relationships, the change in the speakers’
world-view can be much more clearly identified.
Keywords: classifier, non-classifier, language contact, cognition and world-view

1. Introduction
Various aspects of historical change in English have been studied, but there are some areas
which are often neglected. One of them is the treatment of nouns in terms of counting system.
English grammars often state that there are countable and uncountable nouns, but this does
not go beyond mere description. In this paper, the development of the counting system isanalysed, especially in terms of classifier and non-classifier languages. Our main question isabout how the distinction between mass and count nouns evolved. Earlier English
surprisingly has a relatively poor counting system, the distinction between count and mass
nouns not being clear. This poor distinction in earlier English has developed into a new
system of considering certain referents as mass nouns, and these referents came to be counted
differently from those considered as count nouns. There are various changes involved in thisdevelopment, and it is possible that factors like language contact caused the change. Thisview is challenged, asking whether other possibilities, such as a change in human cognition
and the world-view of speakers, also affected this development.
The paper is organised as follows: firstly, the counting system in English is introduced
from a historical perspective, focusing on three constructions, numerals (Section 2.1),
classifiers (Section 2.2) and mass nouns (Section 2.3). After establishing the general patternof change, possible reasons identified why such a change happened. Discussion of this issue
will employ the distinction often used in typology-oriented research between classifier andnon-classifier languages. The former does not distinguish mass nouns from count nouns,
while the latter makes a firm distinction between them. The history of English is discussed
using this distinction, and then this issue is considered within the scope of Indo-European
languages. Most Indo-European languages seem to have developed in the same way as
English, but there are some exceptions which show that the diversity could occur easily.
Finally, it is also hinted that various other linguistic phenomena, such as temporal distinction
or locational relationships, can help us to reveal what was involved in the change in the
counting system more clearly.

118

The data used in this paper is mainly taken from the OED, but the Old English andMiddle English sections of the Helsinki corpus were also used. I also use the conventional
diachronic distinction between Old English (OE, 700-1100), early Middle English (eME,
1100-1350), late Middle English (lME, 1350-1500), early Modern English (eModE, 15001700), late Modern English (lModE, 1700 to present), and Present-day English (PDE,present).

2. The counting system in English
There seem to be subtle but substantial changes in the counting system in English. PDE
distinguishes the mass noun (e.g. water, information, furniture, etc.) from the count noun (e.g.
book, table, window, etc.). Among the various clues which show the changes, we pay
particular attentions to classifiers, i.e., the numerals and classifiers, such as a piece of, a pairof, etc. and the mass noun. We look at each in turn.
2.1 Numerals
The numerals have been present throughout the history of English. The numerals have beenpresent throughout the history of English. Numerals in earlier English were used adjectivally,
agreeing with the nouns they modify in case and number. Some earlier examples are shownin (1) and (2). In (1), the numeral in the dative plural is used in an adverbial phrase, and in(2), the phrase containing the numeral is used as a direct object in the accusative case.
(1)

þrim
gearumær
he forþferde
three.DAT.PL year.DAT.PL after he die.PST‘three years before he died.’ (St. Edmund 128)

(2)

hē
hæfde
fēowerwīf
hehave.PST.3SG
four.ACC.PL wife.ACC.PL‘He had four wives.’ (Ælfric Genesis 15-6)

Case marking was not normally used for any numeral functions, except for the use of thegenitive as a partitive marker, as exemplified in (3) and (4). Note also that case marking wasapparent when the number was spelled out, but when Roman numerals are used, the caseending can be dropped as in (4).
(3)

Se bið
onfīftegummancessa
itbe.PRS on
fifty.GEN.PL mancus.GEN.PL‘It will be worth fifty mancuses.’ (Gregory 75-6)(4)

Ond ymb xxxi wintra
þæs
þe
hē
and
after 31
winter.GEN.PL afterwards which hehæfde, …
have.PST.3SG‘and after 31 years since he gained his kingdom, ...’ (Cynewulf 7)

rīce
kingdom

119Throughout the history of English, the numerals are only used with count nouns, but earlier
instances of mass noun did not have any classifiers (cf. Section 2.2 and 2.3 below), whichmakes these instances look superficially quite similar to those of count nouns.
2.2 Classifiers
The use of classifiers with the mass noun is quite common in PDE, as in a piece of furniture,
an item of clothing, etc. There may be numerous classifies in PDE, but typical examples used
for the analysis in this paper are listed in (5).
(5)

an article of clothing; a blade of grass; a block of ice; a bit of information; a bunch of
grapes; a cake of soap; a cut of meat; a drop of water; an ear of corn; a grain of corn;
an item of clothing; a leaf of sage; a loaf of bread; a lot of water; a piece of
information; a sheet of paper; a slice of bacon; a speck of dust; a stick of chalk; a stripof land; a suit of clothing

The use of these phrases, however, is not common in earlier English. OE data from theHelsinki corpus have some instances, such as sester ((6), (7) and (8)), which was used withthe partitive genitive (cf. (3) and (4)). Sester is an archaic word, which existed untillME/eModE. The last example cited in the OED is from 1580, as shown in (9). The presenceof these phrases is a clear sign that these nouns are treated as the mass noun. However, noticethat the partitive genitive had to be accompanied and this fact indicates that mass nouns usedwith sester were not considered as such in a sense of PDE. In addition, there were otherwords which are not found in the corpus but might appear to be a classifier in older English,e.g. OE dæl/dael ‘part, portion’, clut ‘piece, patch’, cruma ‘framgment, small particle’, fōlh‘chip’, scrēad(e) ‘shred, cutting’, snid ‘slice’. However, these words did not really function asclassifiers, but as countable nouns referring to small parts, as shown in (10). A clear
difference from sester is that these nouns were used on their own, not followed by any nouns
to be quantified (cf. (6) to (9)). Some of these words totally disappeared from the English
language (e.g. fōlh ‘chip’) or the earlier meanings referring to small parts or fragments havedeveloped into new meanings after ME except for some cases such as cruma, which survived
well into the nineteenth century (i.e. lModE) in the sense of ‘a small particle of anything; agrain, as of dust’ (s.v. OED crumb 1b), as exemplified in (11). It is also possible that someolder meanings have survived in certain phrases in PDE (e.g. dæl/dael ‘part, portion’, as in agreat deal of expereince). Overall, there were not many such expressions and their paucity
earlier suggests that the distinction between mass and count nouns was not clearly made.
(6)

Nim
anne
sesterwines&
take.IMP.SG. one.ACC.SG sester.ACC.SG wine.GEN.SG
andtwegenwæteres
two.ACC.SG water.GEN.SG‘Take one sester of wine and two sesters of water.’ (Quadrupedibus 151)

(7)

þrim
sestrumwæteres
three.DAT.PL
sester.DAT.PL
water.GEN.SG‘three sesters of water.’ (Quadrupedibus 590)

120

(8)

þrim
sestrumeles
three.DAT.PL sester.DAT.PL
oil.GEN.SG‘three sesters of oil.’ (Quadrupedibus 52)(9)Demy Sétier, … halfe sester. (1580 HOLLYBAND Tres. Fr. Tong.)(10)

clut (s.v. OED clout, n1, I †3)
Sche rent it al to cloutes ‘She tore it all to fragments’ (c1386 CHAUCER Merch. T.
709)

(11)

cruma (s.v. OED crumb 1b)His eye ... gleaming like a crumb of glass. (1883 STEVENSON Treas. Isl. III. xiv.
(1886) 114)

The periods when the phrases shown in (5) were introduced into the language vary slightly
according to the phrase, but it can be roughly stated that the lME/eModE periods saw the
major change in the treatment of the mass noun (see Table 1). The variety in the earlier
instances can be shown in examples (12) to (19). The use of the corpus is not always reliable
in searching for the earliest documentation, so we use the examples listed in OED.1
Before 1350
1 (5.0%)sester;1350-1500
7 (35.0%)
an ear of;a grain of;a loaf of;a piece of;a sheet of;a slice of;a strip of;

1500-1700
9 (45.0%)
a block of;a blade of;a bunch of,a cake of;a cut of;a lot of;a speck of;a stick of;a suit of;

1700-1900
3 (15.0%)
an article of;a bit of;a drop of;Total
20 (100%)

Table 1 Appearance of classifiers(12)

May no peny Ale hem paye, ne no pece of Bacum. (1362 LANGL. P. Pl A VII 297)

(13)

They no greine of pite sowe. (1390 GOWER Conf. I 14)(14)

Take a loaf of white brede & tepp hit with the brothe. (c1440 Douce Ms. 55 lf. 6b)(15)

In hom þou cast with sklices of bacon. (c1420 Liber Cocorum (1862) 48)(16)

My sewte of blew velwet vestimentes. (1495 Somerset Med. Wills (1901) 330)

(17)

Blocke of tynne, savmon destain. (1530 PALSGR. 199/1)(18)

Mixt, with a blade or two of Mace. (1653 WALTON Angler 158)

(19)

That superb article of modern luxury. (1823 Rutter Fonthill 50)

121Note that most of them are exclusively used with mass nouns, but some of them, such as a lotof and a bunch of, can be used with both mass and count nouns. Both of these phrases
appeared in ca. 1570. In addition, different dialects of English may have different classifiers.
For instance, Hiberno-English has phrases such as loads of as in They give you loads ofinformation (mass noun) and There are loads of books on the table (count noun), or galore asin There’s snow galore outside (mass noun) and There are songs galore (count noun). In
general, the distinction between the count and mass nouns is clearly made, but it becomessomewhat looser in some instances as the language develops.
From the viewpoint of PDE, the article can be considered another type of classifier.
However, OE did not really have an article as in the same sense as PDE; e.g., on beorg ‘onto
a mountain’, where it is normal to insert the indefinite article a in PDE. When what appears
to be the origin of the PDE indefinite article an is used, it normally meant more than theindefinite article; e.g,. an mægð ‘a certain tribe’, sum mon ‘a certain man’. It was thus more ademonstrative than a classifier. The lack of article was thus not an unmistakeable sign of amass noun as in PDE.
2.3 Mass nouns
The counting system does not always depend on the use of classifiers, and the distinction
between the count and mass nouns is also important. As already seen in various examples,
there are some instances of mass nouns even in OE (cf. (6) to (8)), but they were not properly
marked. One interesting feature is the introduction of these nouns into English: some of them
are Anglo-Saxon origin but, since others are derived from other languages such as French or
Latin, one can assume that if the number of these nouns was restricted in earlier English, theuse of classifiers was not necessary. A sample of mass nouns, which can be roughly classified
into substance (20), abstract nouns (21) and others (22), and the period of their first instancecited in the OED is listed in Table 2 to 4.
(20)

Substance
bread; cloth; coffee; foliage; glass; gold; oil; paper; stone; water; wine; wood, etc.

(21)

Abstract nouns
advice; experience; fiction; help; horror; information; knowledge; merchandise; news;
poetry; work, etc.

(22)

Some others
baggage; damage; furniture; luggage; machinery; shopping, parking; post; weather,etc.
Substance

Before 1100
Bread; cloth;glass; gold; oil;stone; water;
wine; wood;
9 (81.8%)

1100-1350

1350-1500

1500-1700
coffee;foliage;

1700-1900

2 (18.2%)

Total

11 (100%)

Table 2 Appearance of mass noun (substance nouns)

122Abstract

Before 1100
Help; work;

1100-1350
advice;knowledge;

2 (25.0%)

2 (25.0%)1350-1500
experience;horror;information;news;
4 (50.0%)

1500-1700

1700-1900

Total

8 (100%)

Table 3 Appearance of mass noun (abstract nouns)
Others

Before 1100
Weather;

1100-1350
damage;merchandise;

1350-1500
baggage;fiction;poetry;1 (8.3%)2 (16.7%)

3 (25.0%)

1500-1700
luggage;furniture;machinery;post;
4 (33.3%)

1700-1900
shopping;
parking;Total

2 (16.7%)

12 (100%)

Table 4 Appearance of mass noun (others)
Table 2 and 3 show that most nouns appeared prior to lME, and notice that almost all thesubstance nouns did so before 1100, or in other words, before the Norman Conquest. The
difference in other nouns is that the majority were introduced from either French or Latin.
There were thus nouns which, from the PDE perspective, needed classifiers, but theappearance of these classifiers was much later than the appearance of the nouns (Table 1).
This may indicate that the introduction of mass nouns triggered the emergence of classifiers.
2.4 General changes
The counting system has certainly changed in English with time. What seems mostsignificant is the emergence of the distinction between the count and mass noun, and the useof various classifier phrases. Judging from the development of the various characteristics
seen in Section 2.1 to 2.3, it seems fair to claim that the firm distinction was not made in OE
and eME, but was established sometime around the lME or eModE period. Earlier English
did not make such a distinction, because various clear signs, such as articles, classifiers were
not used. In addition, the emergence of most mass nouns was reasonably late (cf. Table 2 to4). From the lME period onwards, there is a clear distinction between mass and count nouns.
A question arising from this change is why there is an increase in the use and overt
marking of mass nouns. Is it a mere coincidence of historical change, such as language
contact, or is it something more complex, such as a change in speaker cognition? Since mostmass nouns were borrowed from Latin or French, it seems like a case of language contact.
However, does this suffice to change some cognitively fundamental distinctions such as thecounting system? Earlier English can either be considered to lack the classifiers to mark mass
nouns although they were aware of the mass and count noun, or speakers did not feel the needto distinguish between them. As we will see shortly, there are two basic types in counting
systems in the world’s languages, and English seems to have changed its type. For this, thetypological distinction in counting system is analysed first, then the particular case of English
is considered against the typological data.

1233. Changes in the world-view
3.1 Classifier and non-classifier languages
Languages across the world can be roughly divided into two types in terms of counting
system, which are commonly known as classifier and non-classifier languages. Lyons (1977:463) defines them as follows:[Non-classifier] languages which grammaticalize the distinction between entitydenoting nouns and mass-denoting nouns tend to draw a sharp syntactic distinction
between phrases like “three men” on the one hand, and “three glasses of whisky,” on
the other. Classifier languages do not: they treat enumerable entities and enumerable
quanta in much the same way.

The actual instances of classifier languages are often not easy to describe using non-classifier
languages like PDE: for instance, Lucy (2000: 331-332) describes the case of Yucatec(Mayan). The noun kib’ in Yucatec is often glossed as ‘candle’ in English since it often refers
to candles, but this is misleading. The interpretation as candle is only one instance, and what
this noun refers to is rather ‘wax’ and various interpretations can be made according to theclassifier; e.g., ‘un-tz’íit kib’, ‘one long-thin candle’. What is significant in classifier
languages is that every referent is considered a mass and a classifier is required in order toindividualise each entity. Because of this characteristic these are often referred to as cookiecutter languages:
In order to individuate entities, a numeral classifier or some predicate is required to
impose individuation on the material, metaphorically in much the same way that a
cookie-cutter cuts up undifferentiated dough. (Levinson 1996: 185)

The use of classifiers in both classifier and non-classifier languages is diverse and suchdiversity can be also found within a single language family. As Lucy (2000: 331) states, “it isimportant to see how we come to think of classifiers as classifying nouns rather than theirreferents, that is, exactly how such an interpretative pattern has arisen in practice.” English
differs from other Germanic languages in this respect. In German, for instance, Stück ‘piece’
can be applied to both animate and inanimate referents in counting, so that. zwei Stück can beused for two pieces of bread or two birds, whereas in English, animacy plays an importantrole and the same classifier cannot be used for the different animacy; e.g., two pieces ofbread, two birds, etc. However, there are other counting systems that share this similarity;e.g., ein Blatt Papier ‘one sheet of paper’, zwei paar Hosen ‘two pairs of trousers’, etc.
Judging from various characteristics of classifier and non-classifier languages, PDE isdefinitely a non-classifier language. However, earlier English can be considered a classifier
language, since the distinction between mass and count nouns is not strictly made. In terms ofthe counting system, one can generally state that English prior to OE, OE and eME belonged
to the classifier language type in the sense that mass and count nouns were treated identically,and lModE and PDE, to the non-classifier language type. ME, and perhaps eModE too, form
an intermediate stage representing a transition from one type to the other. Although this typeof change has not been identified in previous research, it signifies one of the most importantchanges in the history of English

124

3.2 Generic relationshipClassifier languages can be found in languages across the world in language families such as
Malayo-Polynesian, Mon-Khmer, Austro-Asiatic, Sino-Tibetan, Altaic, Dravidian and IndoAryan (Senft 1996: 4) and a language isolate, Basque (personal communication Roslyn
Frank). What is interesting for our argument is that the Indo-Aryan languages are classifier
languages, in spite of the fact that other Indo-European languages are non-classifier
languages. Hindi, for example, in principle uses the singular noun after the cardinal numbers
in counting as in (23). Therefore, the singular form rupayā is used instead of its plural form
rupaye ‘rupees’. However, it is possible to use the plural form as in (24), i.e., mahīne is aplural form of mahīnā ‘month’. In addition, Hindi as well as other Indo-Aryan languages alsouses classifiers, such as ‘a cup of’, ‘two cups of’, etc., but the nouns involved in the phrase
are all mass nouns. Thus for instance, pyālā ‘cup’ is used instead of pyāle ‘cups’ (cf. (25)). In
non-classifier languages like PDE, ‘milk’ and ‘tea’ are always treated as mass nouns, but‘cup’ is always a count noun, hence, ‘three cups of milk/tea’.
Hindi (McGregor 1995: 69)(23) tīn
rupayā
three rupee‘three rupees’(24)chah mahīne mem
sixmonth in‘in six months.’

Hindi (McGregor 1995: 70)(25) tīn
pyālā dūdh/cāy
three cup
milk/tea‘three cups of milk/tea’
Although they are not generally considered classifier languages, Celtic languages, anotherbranch in Indo-European languages, have a somewhat similar pattern to Indo-Aryan
languages. For instance, the classifier go leor ‘many, much, a lot’ can be used for both countand mass nouns, and the noun modified by it has to be in the singular (e.g. (26)), similar to
the Indo-Aryan languages. However, there is a much more complex counting system in the
Celtic languages, which cannot be found in other branches of Indo-European. This involves
various sound changes in the noun. For instance, consider bád ‘boat’ in Irish, with thenominal classifiers from one to ten as shown in (27). Note that there is a plural form, baíd
‘boats’, but the singular form is used in counting. There are some changes in the noun, but it
is not the singular-plural distinction, but the change of initial consonant; aon ‘one’ to sé ‘six’
causes lenition (addition of aspiration, orthographically marked by h, to the initialconsonant), and seacht ‘seven’ to deich ‘ten’ causes eclipsis (addition of consonant, whichsilences the original initial consonant. Thus, in the eclipsed form of bád, mbád, m is
pronounced but not b).
Irish(26) a. seachtain‘week’ (SG)125

b. go leor seachtainc. trí seachtainí‘many weeks’ (SG)‘three weeks’ (PL)

Irish(27) bád amháin ‘one boat’; dhá bhád ‘two boats’; trí bhád ‘three boats’; cheithre bhád‘four boats’; chúig bhád ‘five boats’; sé bhád ‘six boats’; seacht mbád ‘seven boats’;ocht mbád ‘eight boats’; noai mbad ‘nine boats’; deich mbád ‘ten boats’, etc.
To make the grammatical rule still more complex, the addition of a definite article causes
another change as exemplified in (28). Note that there is no indefinite article in Celtic
languages. The definite article has two forms, an (SG) and na (PL), but the number two cantake both forms. Exceptions to these rules can be found in nouns denoting measurement. In
this case, the initial consonants are not affected, and the nouns can be in the plural form, e.g.,
trí ceathrúnaí ‘three quarters’ (ceathrú (SG)); trí troighthe ‘three feet’ (triogh (SG)); thrígalúin ‘three gallons’ (cf. galún (SG)), etc. Note that seachtain ‘week’ as in (24) also behavesin this way.
(28)

Irish
a. an t-aon fhuinneoig (amháin)b. an/na dá fhuinneoig
c. na trí fhuinneoig‘the only window’‘two windows’‘three windows’

Both Germanic, Celtic and Indo-Aryan languages are descendants of a common ancestrallanguage, Proto-Indo-European. The reconstructed data available to us so far suggest that the
cardinal numbers existed, but the distinction between the mass and count noun was notclearly made. Proto-Indo-European was thus a classifier language and it is obvious that there
was a divergence into different types. Judging from the way PDE organises the counting
system, the distinction between mass and count nouns seems to have been established a longtime ago. However, as various data in Section 2.1 to 2.3 have shown, it was not surprisingthat Old English preserved some relics of Proto-Indo-European. Various other traces can befound in word order, gender system, etc. (cf. Toyota 2005, 2009), which show that thedevelopment of English into PDE happened reasonably late, perhaps after lME., Some
unsettled ambiguous cases can also be considered indicators of this relatively late change inthe counting system. For example, money is normally a mass noun, but it can be pluralized as
moneys/monies, meaning ‘amounts of money’. Furthermore, it becomes more complex once
articles or quantifiers are involved: consider less in less work (uncountable noun) and lessstudents (countable noun) or the article in I have a tea indicates that tea is a count noun, but
tea as in Would you like tea or coffee? is generally considered a mass noun. This type of
unclarity shows that the mass-count distinction in English is still in flux, and this is due to therelatively late development of the clear distinction and its related items, such as quantifiers or
articles. This is partly due to the lack of necessity, and entities such as ‘water’ were notcounted in the sense of ‘a cup of water’. This means that another possible reason could bethat the way speakers viewed the world changed. We turn to this argument in the next
section.

126

3.3 Changes in terms of conceptualisation and cognition
The difference between classifier and non-classifier languages is often considered in terms ofdifferent conceptualisations; for instance, each language treats spatial and temporal
expressions differently (cf. Bybee and Pagliuca 1985; Levinson 2003). This means that there
is a distinction between classifier and non-classifier languages, but what is classified and how
it is classified depends on each language, as nicely summarised in Nisbett (2003: 18):
For the Chinese, the background scheme for the nature of the world was that it was amass of substances rather than a collection of discrete objects. Looking at a piece ofwood, the Chinese philosopher saw a seamless whole composed of a single substance,or perhaps of interpenetrating substances of several kinds. The Greek philosopher
would have seen an object composed of particles. Whether the world was composed of
atoms or of continuous substances was debated in Greece, but the issue never arose in
China. It was continuous substances, period.

It is a very well-known fact that there are two opposing issues on lexicalised concepts andgeneral thinking and reasoning, represented by the linguistic relativity theory and thelanguage of thought hypothesis. The ongoing argument between these two approaches
focuses on the synchronic state of languages and comparison of them, as in the case of
distinction between the classifier and non-classifier languages. Even among classifier
languages, there are variations in the way various classifiers are applied to certain objects.
This kind of variety, according to some scholars (see, among others, Levinson 1992, 2003;
Lucy 1992, 2000, Senft 1996, 2000), represents the way that each language packages thesurrounding world in its own way. This concept has long been current, as in Benjamin
Whorf’s comment that:
Every complex of a culture and a l[angua]ge (or every ‘culture’ in the broadest sense, as
including l[angua]ge) carries with it a metaphysics; a model of the universe, composedof notions and assumptions organized into a harmonious system which is valid forframing statements about what goes on in the world as the carriers of that culture see it.
(Whorf 1938, cited in Lee 1996: 264)

This type of statement can be applied to the variations found in the counting system of IndoEuropean languages, as with the preservation of the classifier type only in Indo-Aryan andCeltic languages and not in the others. However, changes within a particular language overperiods of time, such as the one we are discussing here, are rarely noticed.
The lack of vocabulary relating to the counting system in earlier English means thatspeakers could not express the distinction between the mass and count nouns, although theywanted to. This makes the change in the counting system look like a case of language contact,but is it possible that a change in the way speakers viewed the world triggered the change inEnglish? One can assume that the borrowing of new vocabularies could have been done
without making the distinction between count and mass nouns, so that it is hypotheticallypossible to use phrases like two informations, three furnitures, etc. The ungrammaticality ofthese phrases in PDE means that speakers developed a certain pattern in distinguishing mass
nouns from count ones. In addition, another piece of evidence for the change in the worldview is that the counting of days and years has changed ─ days used to be counted as nights(as in several moons ago ‘several days ago’) and years as winters (as in two winters have127

passed ‘two years have passed’), or as Mitchell and Robinson (1994: 209) put it, “the AngloSaxons reckoned years in terms of winters.” This system is still present in some modern IndoEuropean languages, for instance, in Russian. This is not surprising: since Russian is rather
archaic in its grammatical structure (see Toyota 2008, forthcoming), their world-view also
seems to be archaic and preserved in counting. These pieces of evidence also show the way
the world-view of the speakers had indeed changed in some languages. The English grammar
has changed significantly since OE, and the degree of changes is much greater than that inany other Indo-European languages, as extensively discussed in Toyota (forthcoming), and it
is not surprising that some basic concepts such as counting system have changed over the
past 3,000 years or so.
The change in cognition has to be further investigated in relation to other cognitions,such as locational or temporal conceptualisation. For instance, there is a co-relationshipbetween the space and time: languages that use the past and non-past as the basic tense
distinction tend to have a specific metaphorical usage of body parts; i.e., the front of the bodyfor the future and the back for the past; e.g., years ahead of us indicates that the forthcoming
year is expressed via the front parts of the body, while years behind us, the past years require
the back of the body. Those languages that have the distinction between future and non-futureoften use the reverse combination, i.e., the back of the body for the future and the front forthe past. Nuñez (1999: 52) reports the case of Aymara (an Amerind language spoken in thehighlands of the Andes). This language has the second pattern of metaphorisation (back ofbody-future and front of body-past) and this can be found in the spontaneous gestures of thenative speakers: “when saying something like ‘a long time ago’ they point towards the front
and when referring to some event that occurred even earlier than that, they point even further
ahead” (Nuñez ibid.: 52). Such instances further confirm that the time and locative
relationships are somehow related to each other in human cognition. In order to solve
problems about the counting system, it is important to look at various changes in English,
some of which may not necessarily be linguistic. We can then provide a much firmer
conclusion that the change in counting system in English was triggered by changes in theworld-view of its speaker.

4. Conclusion
We have analysed the counting system in the history of English. The evidence of written datasuggests that the counting system has certainly changed. Earlier English surprisingly has areasonably poor counting system and can be considered a classifier language. PDE, on theother hand, is a non-classifier language and this change seems to have happened around thelME/eModE periods. The earlier lack of a clear distinction between the count and mass nouns
was in part due to the paucity of earlier mass nouns and classifiers, and this seems to havebeen resolved by language contact with French and Latin. However, it is argued here that thiswas also due to the change in speakers’ world-view, i.e., the way speakers of earlier English
treated certain objects differently from that of PDE speakers. Such changes can be foundelsewhere in the language, such as counting days by nights, years by winters, etc. This type ofclaim can be further strengthened by studying various other human cognitions, such as
locational or temporal relationships. This paper therefore suggests that the counting system inEnglish has changed from a classifier language type to a non-classifier one, but it also128

indicates that further studies in various other changes in English can reveal more clearly how
the world-view of the speakers has changed from OE to PDE.
Notes:* I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for valuable comments on the earlier version of this paper.
Any shortcomings are, needless to say, my own.
1 Earlier instances (i.e., OE and ME) of these phrases cannot be found in the corpora.

References
BYBEE, Joan, PAGLIUCA, William. 1985 Cross-linguistic comparison and the development ofgrammatical meaning. In FISIAK, J. Historical semantics – historical word formation. Berlin:
Mouton, 1985, pp. 59-83.
LEE, Penny. 1996. The Whorf theory complex: A critical reconstruction, Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
LEVINSON, Stephen. 1992. Premier for the field investigation of spatial description and conception.
In Pragmatics 1992, vol. 2, pp. 5-47.
LEVINSON, Stephen. 1996. Relativity in spatial conception and description. In GUMPERZ, J.,
LEVINSON, S. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp.
177-202.
LEVINSON, Stephen. 2003. Space in language and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
LUCY, John A. 1992. Language diversity and thought: A reformulation of the linguistic relativity
hypothesis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
LUCY, John A. 2000. Systems of nominal classification: A concluding discussion. In SENFT, G.
Systems of Nominal Classification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 326-341.
LYONS, John. 1977. Semantics, Vols. I and II, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MCGREGOR, Ronald S. 1995. Outline of Hindi grammar (3rd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MITCHELL, Bruce, ROBINSON, Fred C. 1994. A Guide to Old English (5th ed.), Oxford: Blackwell.
NISBETT, Richard E. 2003. The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think
Differently... and Why. New York: The Free Press.
NÚÑEZ, Rafael. 1999. Could the future taste purple?: reclaiming mind, body and cognition. Journalof Consciousness Studies 1999, vol. 6, pp. 41-40.
OED = SIMPSON, J. A., WEINER, E. S. C. 1989. The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.). Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
SENFT, Gunter. 1996. Classificatory particles in Kilivila. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

129

SENFT, Gunter. (ed.) 2000. Systems of Nominal Classification. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
TOYOTA, Junichi. 2005. Old English as a language with active alignment: evidence from word
order. In KARLSSON, Fred Papers from the 20th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. Available
at: <http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/kielitiede/20scl/proceedings.shtml>
TOYOTA, Junichi. 2008. Alignment change in the history of English: Indo-European perspectives. In
Rasulić, K., Trbojević, I. English language and literature studies: structure across cultures.
Proceedings (vol. 1). Belgrade: University of Belgrade Press, 2008, pp. 155-167.
TOYOTA, Junichi. 2009. Disagreement of feminine gender: historical perspectives. Under review at
Kalbotyra vol. 60.
TOYOTA, Junichi. forthcoming. History of English: origin of peculiarities. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
WHORF, Benjamin 1938. Yale Report. In LEE, P. The Whorf Theory Complex. John Benjamins,
1996, pp. 261-280.
Junichi Toyota
Lund University
SOL Centrum, English
Box 201, SE-22100
Lund, Sweden
Junichi.Toyota@englund.lu.se

In SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics [online]. 2009, vol. 6, no. 1 [cit. 2009-07-06]. Available
on web page <http://www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTL13/pdf_doc/07.pdf>. ISSN 1339-782X.

130