Cover not available
Article published In:
Writing and the Mind
Edited by David R. Olson and Marcelo Dascal †
[Pragmatics & Cognition 21:3] 2013
► pp. 552–572

Constraint, cognition, and written numeration

 | Wayne State University
The world’s diverse written numeral systems are affected by human cognition; in turn, written numeral systems affect mathematical cognition in social environments. The present study investigates the constraints on graphic numerical notation, treating it neither as a byproduct of lexical numeration, nor a mere adjunct to writing, but as a specific written modality with its own cognitive properties. Constraints do not refute the notion of infinite cultural variability; rather, they recognize the infinity of variability within defined limits, thus transcending the universalist/particularist dichotomy. In place of strictly innatist perspectives on mathematical cognition, a model is proposed that invokes domain-specific and notationally-specific constraints to explain patterns in numerical notations. The analysis of exceptions to cross-cultural generalizations makes the study of near-universals highly productive theoretically. The cross-cultural study of patterns in written numbers thus provides a rich complement to the cognitive analysis of writing systems.
Keywords: cognitive anthropology, numerals, constraints, writing, number systems
Published online: 24 July 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.21.3.08chr
References (55)
Andersen, H. 2005. “The plasticity of universal grammar”. In W. Østreng (ed), Convergence: Interdisciplinary Communications 2004/2005. Oslo: Centre for Advanced Studies at the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters, 21–26.Google Scholar
Bartley, W.C. 2002. “Counting on tradition: Iñupiaq numbers in the school setting”. In J.E. Hankes and G.R. Fast (eds), Perspectives on Indigenous People of North America. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 225–236.Google Scholar
Boas, F. 1896. “The limitations of the comparative method of anthropology”. Science 41: 901–908. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borges, J.L. 1964. Labyrinths. D.A. Yates and J.E. Irby (eds). New York: New Directions.Google Scholar
Brooks, D.R. and Wiley, E.O. 1988. Evolution as Entropy: Toward a Unified Theory of Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brown, C.H. 1976. “General principles of human anatomical partonomy and speculations on the growth of partonomic nomenclature”. American Ethnologist 3(3): 400–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, C.H. and Witkowski, S.R. 1981. “Figurative language in a universalist perspective”. American Ethnologist 8(3): 596–615. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, D.E. 1991. Human Universals. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Chrisomalis, S. 2010. Numerical Notation: A Comparative History. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
d’Errico, F. 1998. “Palaeolithic origins of artificial memory systems: An evolutionary perspective”. In C. Renfrew and C. Scarre (eds), Cognition and Material Culture: The Archaeology of Symbolic Storage. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 19–50.Google Scholar
Damerow, P. 1996. Abstraction and Representation: Essays on the Cultural Evolution of Thinking. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dehaene, S. 2011. The Number Sense. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
de Cruz, H., Neth, H., and Schlimm, D. 2010. “The cognitive basis of arithmetic”. In B. Löwe and T. Müller (eds), PhiMSAMP. Philosophy of Mathematics: Sociological Aspects and Mathematical Practice. Texts in Philosophy 11. London: College Publications, 59–106.Google Scholar
Dinesen, I. 1992. Out of Africa. New York: Modern Library.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. 1997. “Why statistical universals are better than absolute universals”. Proceedings, Chicago Linguistic Society 331:123–145.Google Scholar
. 2003. “Significant and non-significant implicational universals”. Linguistic Typology 7(1): 108–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elkins, J. 1996. “The impossibility of close reading”. Current Anthropology 37(2): 185–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, N. and Levinson, S.C. 2009. “The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5): 429–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Everett, D.L. 2005. “Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã”. Current Anthropology 46(4): 621–646. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frank, M.C., Everett, D.L., Fedorenko, E., and Gibson, E. 2008. “Number as a cognitive technology: Evidence from Pirahã language and cognition”. Cognition 108(3): 819–824. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardner, M. 1956. Mathematics, Magic and Mystery. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Gibson, J.J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Goldenweiser, A. 1913. “The principle of limited possibilities in the development of culture”. Journal of American Folklore 26(101): 259–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1942. Anthropology: An Introduction to Primitive Culture. New York: F.S. Crofts.Google Scholar
Goody, J. 1977. The Domestication of the Savage Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1986. The Logic of Writing and the Organization of Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J.H. 1978. “Generalizations about numeral systems”. In J.H. Greenberg (ed), Universals of Human Language. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 249–297.Google Scholar
Hallpike, C.R. 1986. The Principles of Social Evolution. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Hoffecker, J.F. 2007. “Representation and recursion in the archaeological record”. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14(4): 359–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, R.B. and Smith, B.S. 1977. Beginning Cherokee. 2nd ed. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S.C. and Evans, N. 2010. “Time for a sea-change in linguistics: Response to comments on The Myth of Language Universals”. Lingua 120(12): 2733–2758. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mandler, G. and Shebo, B.J. 1982. “Subitizing: an analysis of its component processes”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 111(1): 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Margetts, A. 2007. “Learning verbs without boots and straps? The problem of ‘give’ in Saliba”. In M. Bowerman and P. Brown (eds), Cross-linguistic Perspectives on Argument Structure: Implications for Learnability. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 111–41.Google Scholar
Marshack, A. 1972. “Upper Paleolithic notation and symbol”. Science 1781: 817–828. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, K.F. and Jianjun Zhu. 1991. “The trouble with teens: Accessing the structure of number names”. Journal of Memory and Language 30(1): 48–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murray, A. 1978. Reason and Society in the Middle Ages. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Nevins, A., Pesetsky, D., and Rodrigues, C. 2009. “Pirahã exceptionality: A reassessment”. Language 85(2): 355–404. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nissen, H.J., Damerow, P., and Englund, R.K. 1993. Archaic Bookkeeping: Early Writing and Techniques of Economic Administration in the Ancient Near East. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Olson, D.R. 1994. The World on Paper: The Conceptual and Cognitive Implications of Writing and Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pericliev, V. 2004. “Universals, their violation and the notion of phonologically peculiar languages”. Journal of Universal Language 51: 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, A. and Smolensky, P. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Report RuCCS-TR-2, Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
Reboul, A. 2012. “Language: Between cognition, communication and culture”. Pragmatics & Cognition 20(2): 295–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sapir, E. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Google Scholar
Schlimm, D. and Neth, H. 2008. “Modeling ancient and modern arithmetic practices: Addition and multiplication with Arabic and Roman numerals”. In V. Sloutsky, B. Love and K. McRae (eds), Proceedings of the 30th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society, 2097–2102.Google Scholar
Schmandt-Besserat, D. 1992. Before Writing: From Counting to Cuneiform. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Scribner, S. and Cole, M. 1981. The Psychology of Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seiler, H. 1995. “Iconicity between indicativity and predicativity”. In S. Raffaele (ed), Iconicity in Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 141–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serafini, L. 1983. Codex Seraphinianus. 1st American edition. New York: Abbeville Press.Google Scholar
Tagliavini, C. 1949. “Di alcune denominazioni della papilla”. Annali dell’Instituto Universitario di Napoli NS 31: 341–378.Google Scholar
Trigger, B.G. 1991. “Distinguished lecture in archeology: Constraint and freedom — a new synthesis for archeological explanation”. American Anthropologist 93(3): 551–569. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walker, W. and Sarbaugh, J. 1993. “The early history of the Cherokee syllabary”. Ethnohistory 40(1): 70–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watson, R.A. 1976. “Laws, systems, certainty, and particularities”. American Anthropologist 78(2): 341–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiese, H. 2003. Numbers, Language, and the Human Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wohlgemuth, J. and Cysouw, M. (eds). 2010. Rethinking Universals: How Rarities Affect Linguistic Theory. Mouton: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J. and Norman, D.A. 1995. “A representational analysis of numeration systems”. Cognition 571: 271–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Beller, Sieghard, Andrea Bender, Stephen Chrisomalis, Fiona M. Jordan, Karenleigh A. Overmann, Geoffrey B. Saxe & Dirk Schlimm
2018. The cultural challenge in mathematical cognition. Journal of Numerical Cognition 4:2 ► pp. 448 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.