The words speaker and hearer are countable nouns according to the Cambridge Dictionary. And a countable noun should either used plural or be with an article.

But I see many use these words without any article in the singular form. For example see:

It is very plausible that this transfer of thought contents from speaker to hearer is a necessary condition for successful communication. Source

So, my question is, can a countable noun become uncountable just by our usage?

closed as unclear what you're asking by Hot Licks, Edwin Ashworth, Mitch, Dan Bron, Mari-Lou A Oct 18 '17 at 19:51

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    It just became anarthrous, not uncountable. Like the expression "Big deal!" doesn't make "deal" uncountable, just anarthrous. – David Schwartz Oct 15 '17 at 21:24
  • 1
    @DavidSchwartz Arguably one could say that the article has been elided. "...transfer of thoughts content from (a) speaker to (a) hearer..." – WS2 Oct 15 '17 at 21:32
  • 1
    @WS2 I think so. Just like "Big deal!" is probably just a shortening of "That's a big deal". There are many cases where English permits you to omit words when there's no chance of confusion. – David Schwartz Oct 15 '17 at 21:35
  • 1
    ' ... a countable noun should either used [in plural form] or be [used] with an article' is a woeful oversimplification. See the thread in the 'duplicate' call, and Can predicative complements not be bare noun phrases in English – ..., for instance. There are many expressions, some more fixed than others (and countability hard to determine with some), where no articles are used. From hand to mouth / from parent to child / from cow to cow .... – Edwin Ashworth Oct 15 '17 at 22:31
  • 2