Is the word "vandalism" countable?

Question

I am a regular editor on Wikipedia and one of the things I do often is dealing with so-called "vandalism". I do this on many different language versions of Wikipedia and found out that in these other languages there are plural forms of the word "vandalism". For example:

• French: "vandalisme" => "vandalismes"
• Italian: "vandalismo" => "vandalismi"
• Hungarian: "vandalizmus" => "vandalizmusok"

I could easily verify these on Wiktionary.

Now, when it comes to the English word "vandalism", I have always come to think of the term as uncountable, because I have almost never encountered the use of "vandalisms" in public usage. But on Wiktionary the entry "vandalism" is listed as this:

Noun

vandalism (countable and uncountable, plural vandalisms)

1. Willful damage or destruction of any property with no other purpose than damage or destruction of said property.

As we turned down the street I was appalled by the vandalism; spray-paint and smashed windows that were everywhere.

Somehow I find the use of "vandalisms" very unnatural-sounding, yet a Google search quickly proves that such cases do exist:

• Police investigating spate of vandalisms in northwest Lincoln
• Deputies receiving reports of political sign thefts and vandalisms
• Moreno Valley man arrested in connection with more than 100 vandalisms

The first of the above headlines could be written as "spate of vandalism" and not change the meaning, and the second could be "political sign thefts and vandalism" for the same reason. But in the third, "100 vandalism" would just not sound right, yet "100 vandalisms" would sound odd.

As a side note, the Wiktionary entry vandalization also lists the noun as both countable and uncountable, while the similar term cybervandalism is only uncountable.

All that being said, are there any rules as to when the word "vandalism" and its derived terms could be treated as countable nouns, and vice versa?

Answer 1

Lots of words in English have marginal "countable" or plural uses. (For a possible terminological distinction between these, see BillJ's comment "The fact that a noun has a plural form does not necessarily mean it is a count noun. The only test for a countability is whether it can combine with the cardinal numbers "one, two, three" etc.")

I think an important point to remember is that just because a particular form or usage technically exists, doesn't mean that it will sound natural. For example, the plural form hairs undoubtedly exists, but native English speakers would find it unnatural in a sentence like "She's going to get her hairs cut."

It is in many cases a simplification to say that some particular noun is strictly "uncountable" and never used in the plural, similar to how it is in many cases a simplification to say that some particular adjective is strictly "ungradable" and never used in the comparative or superlative.

In fact, semantic "coercion" can often cause supposedly "nongradable" adjectives to have gradable uses that sound acceptable to many speakers, or supposedly "uncountable"/"non-count"/"mass" nouns to have plural uses that sound acceptable to many speakers. So it's not all that helpful to have a yes-no answer to a question like "Is the word “vandalism” countable?", but if you really want one, the answer seems to be "yes (it can be)" (as you yourself seem to have discovered). The OED gives as its second definition of the noun vandalism

b. An instance of [vandalism]; a vandalistic act.

1882 W. Ballantine Some Exper. Barrister's Life xxii. 218 The vandalisms that have changed the fair scene..into its present shape.

That said, this is a very uncommon usage. I don't remember ever using or hearing "vandalisms". The situations where I would find it the best way to describe something are very rare, or even nonexistent. As Chris H's answer points out, headlines often use unnatural wording, partly to save space: "100 vandalisms" is shorter than the more natural-sounding "100 acts of vandalism".

Answer 2

Oxford has it as a mass noun; Collins also says uncountable. Cambridge doesn't say either way but gives no plural examples (their mobile view seems somewhat lacking).

Your counter examples are mainly some headlines and Wiktionary. The latter, for all its usefulness, is easily edited (I've done it myself) and editors may be a little too willing to document non-standard uses. Headlinese is definitely prove to non-standard use.

As a fellow Wikipedia editor (rarely now, but with a fair few anti-vandalism edits in the past) I wouldn't use the plural in that case. The mass noun is often appropriate (an edit summary might be "revert last 42 edits, all vandalism"), or you can refer to "acts of vandalism" or even "defacements".

I've tracked down the Wiktionary edit that changed the description from "uncountable" to giving a plural form. It was by a very experienced editor who didn't cite a source.