Prototyping Mass Nouns from Students’ Perspective: A Pedagogical Implication

Main Article Content

Md Alam


This paper investigates ESL learners’ prototyping mass nouns as a grammatical category. The study is supported by the theory of prototype developed by Rosch in 1970s which plays a wide role in graded categorization of the existent entities in the world. With an expected inspiration from the theory, the prototyping of vocabulary received research attention especially in the pedagogical world. Promisingly, this study seeks to extend the theory to explore a lexico-grammatical category i.e. “mass nouns” from learners’ perspective. Actually, the study was directed to  find out which prototypical feature ESL students exploit to prioritize some mass nouns as prototypical examples over some other mass nouns, and  how far students’ experientially and pedagogically perceived “prototypes” of mass nouns help them to correctly grouping up nouns as in mass category. The study was focused on  shedding some light on a few pedagogical tips and implications in some likely challenging contexts of teaching mass nouns. The study reveals that ESL students shortlist ‘liquids’ (such as water, milk, wine, juice etc.) ‘gases’(such as hydrogen, oxygen etc.), ‘abstract ideas’ (such as childhood, anger, safety, knowledge etc.), ‘powdered substances’ (such as sand, sugar etc.), and some ‘natural entities’ (such as heat, sunshine etc.) as “prototype of mass nouns” which all are un-individuated and sometimes  intangible - meaning uncountable - while the learners recognize ‘non-countable’ status as the most important prototypical feature of mass nouns. And, the students isolated ‘rice’, ‘wheat’, ‘hair’, ‘grass’ , ‘cotton’ and ‘coal’ as less prototypical mass nouns based on their intrinsic sense that these mass nouns are plural and they even can be individuated. However, the study reflects that the students’ perceived prototypes are not sufficient as they selected and considered many of mass nouns as so distant members as countable. It was further found that contextual type shifts of mass-count nouns, arbitrary sematic distributions to lexis, cross-linguistic approach to mass nouns, intrinsic and realistic conception, superordinate-subordinate influence, and perception of enumerating status etc. account for students’ this surprise selection of a number of mass nouns as opposite category i.e. count nouns. If pedagogues are non-responsive to these factors and fail to redefine their approaches to mass noun teaching, it is most likely to lead to learners’ grammatical inaccuracy resulted from their determiner-number-mass noun mismatch. 

Article Details

How to Cite
Alam, M. (2020). Prototyping Mass Nouns from Students’ Perspective: A Pedagogical Implication . Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(1), 76–99.


1. Behrens, H. (Ed.). (2008). Corpora in language acquisition research: History, methods, perspectives (Vol. 6). John Benjamins Publishing.
2. Bennett, T. (2005). American English for Filipinos. Pasig City, Philippines: Anvil Publishing Co.
3. Bobb, S., Kroll, J., & Jackson, C. (2015). Lexical constraints in second language learning: Evidence on grammatical gender in German. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(3), 502-523. 10.1017/S1366728914000534. (Questionaire adopted from this research)
4. Brugman, C. (1981). The story of ‘over’. M.A. Thesis, University of California at Berkeley. Reprinted by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
5. Brugman, C. (1988). The story of ‘over’: Polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon. Garland Press.
6. Brugman, C., & Lakoff, G. (1988). Cognitive topology and lexical networks. In G. W. Cottrell, S. Small, & M. K. Tannenhaus (Eds.), Lexical ambiguity resolution: perspectives from psycholinguistics, neuropsychology and artificial intelligence. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman Publishers.
7. Chomsky, N. (2014). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Vol. 11). MIT press.
8. Coventry, K. R., & Mather, G. (2002). The Real Story of Over?. In Spatial Language (pp. 165-184). Springer, Dordrecht.
9. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
10. DeCapua, A. (2010). Grammar for teachers. New York, NY: Springer.
11. Eastwood, J., & Heath, M. (1992). Oxford practice grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Farjana, N. (2019). [online] Available at: [Accessed 30 Oct. 2019].
13. Galton, A. (1995). Verb aspect and prototype theory. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Science (ECCS'95) (pp. 121-128).
14. Gardner-Bonneau, D., & Blanchard, H. E. (Eds.). (2007). Human factors and voice interactive systems. Springer Science & Business Media.
15. Grammar Handbook « Writers Workshop: Writer Resources « The Center for Writing Studies, Illinois. (2019). Retrieved from
16. Geeraerts, D. (2006). Prototype theory. Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings, 34, 141-165.
17. Gillon, B. (1992). Towards a Common Semantics for English Count and Mass Nouns. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15(6), 597-639.
18. Gillon B.S. (1999) The Lexical Semantics of English Count and Mass Nouns. In: Viegas E. (eds) Breadth and Depth of Semantic Lexicons. Text, Speech and Language Technology, vol 10. Springer, Dordrecht
19. Hall, D. (1991). Acquiring Proper Nouns for Familiar and Unfamiliar Animate Objects: Two-Year-Olds' Word-Learning Biases. Child Development, 62(5), 1142-1154. doi:10.2307/1131158
20. Higginbotham, J. (1994). Mass and Count Quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy, 17(5), 447-480.
21. Ji, J., & Liang, M. (2018). An animacy hierarchy within inanimate nouns: English corpus evidence from a prototypical perspective. Lingua, 205, 71-89.
22. Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Wason, P. C. (Eds.). (1977). Thinking: Readings in cognitive science. CUP Archive.
23. Kang, B. (1994). Plurality and Other Semantic Aspects of Common Nouns in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 3(1), 1-24.
24. Lester, M. (2013). English articles and determiners up close.
25. Leung, M. W. K. (1991). Prototype theory and teaching English prepositions. Perspectives (City University of Hong Kong), 3, 89-97.
26. Markman, E. M. (1985). Why superordinate category terms can be mass nouns. Cognition, 19(1), 31-53.
27. Moskowitz, G. (2005). Social cognition. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
28. Moss, H. E., Tyler, L. K., & Taylor, K. I. (2007). Conceptual structure. The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics, 217-234.
29. Murphy, G. (2004). The big book of concepts. MIT press.
30. Ning, Y. (1998). The contemporary theory of metaphor: a perspective from Chinese.
31. Pelletier F.J. (1975) Non-Singular Reference: Some Preliminaries. In: Pelletier F.J. (eds) Mass Terms: Some Philosophical Problems. Synthese Language Library (Texts and Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy), vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht
32. Polzenhagen, F. (2007). Cultural conceptualisations in West African English: A cognitive-linguistic approach (Vol. 69). Peter Lang Pub Incorporated.
33. Qiang, Z (2014). The reflection of markedness in prototype category theory on semantic level and its implications for second language acquisition.
34. Riemer, N. (2010). Introducing semantics. Cambridge University Press.
35. Rosch, E. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328–350.
36. Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192–233.
37. Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 104(3), 192.
38. Rosch, E. (1977). Human Categorisation. In N. Warren (Ed.), Advances in Cross-cultural Psychology, Vol. 7. London: Academic Press.
39. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.
40. Santos, D. (1990, August). Lexical gaps and idioms in Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 13th conference on Computational linguistics-Volume 2 (pp. 330-335). Association for Computational Linguistics.
41. Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Ernst Klett Sprachen.
42. SOKOLOWSKI, R. (2017). Nouns, Verbs, and Contexts. In Presence and Absence: A Philosophical Investigation of Language and Being (pp. 12-22). WASHINGTON, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press.
43. Swarts, J. (2015). CONTEXT. In HEILKER P. & VANDENBERG P. (Eds.), Keywords in Writing Studies (pp. 42-46). University Press of Colorado.
44. Takatori, Y., & Schwanenflugel, P. (1992). Superordinate Category Terms and Mass-Count Noun Status. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 2(2), 199-209.
45. Taylor, R.J.(2015). Prototype Theory ion Linguistics. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition),P. 286-289.
46. Weseliński, A. (1998). Papers on literature, culture and language. Warszawa: Wydawn. Uniw. Warszawskiego.
47. Zhang, F. (2011). Prototype Theory and the Categorization of the English Tense System. Linguistics Journal, 5(1).
48. Zhang, H. (2017). A study on implication of prototype theory in English Vocabulary teaching. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(1), 133-137.