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

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Constraint, cognition, and written numeration

 | Wayne State University
Published online: 24 July 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.21.3.08chr
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.
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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, F. 1896. “The limitations of the comparative method of anthropology”. Science 41: 901–908. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borges, J.L. 1964. Labyrinths. D.A. Yates and J.E. Irby (eds). New York: New Directions.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, C.H. and Witkowski, S.R. 1981. “Figurative language in a universalist perspective”. American Ethnologist 8(3): 596–615. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, D.E. 1991. Human Universals. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chrisomalis, S. 2010. Numerical Notation: A Comparative History. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Damerow, P. 1996. Abstraction and Representation: Essays on the Cultural Evolution of Thinking. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dehaene, S. 2011. The Number Sense. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Dinesen, I. 1992. Out of Africa. New York: Modern Library.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dryer, M. 1997. “Why statistical universals are better than absolute universals”. Proceedings, Chicago Linguistic Society 331:123–145.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. “Significant and non-significant implicational universals”. Linguistic Typology 7(1): 108–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elkins, J. 1996. “The impossibility of close reading”. Current Anthropology 37(2): 185–226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Everett, D.L. 2005. “Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã”. Current Anthropology 46(4): 621–646. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gardner, M. 1956. Mathematics, Magic and Mystery. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibson, J.J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldenweiser, A. 1913. “The principle of limited possibilities in the development of culture”. Journal of American Folklore 26(101): 259–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1942. Anthropology: An Introduction to Primitive Culture. New York: F.S. Crofts.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goody, J. 1977. The Domestication of the Savage Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1986. The Logic of Writing and the Organization of Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Hallpike, C.R. 1986. The Principles of Social Evolution. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffecker, J.F. 2007. “Representation and recursion in the archaeological record”. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14(4): 359–387. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmes, R.B. and Smith, B.S. 1977. Beginning Cherokee. 2nd ed. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mandler, G. and Shebo, B.J. 1982. “Subitizing: an analysis of its component processes”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 111(1): 1–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Marshack, A. 1972. “Upper Paleolithic notation and symbol”. Science 1781: 817–828. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murray, A. 1978. Reason and Society in the Middle Ages. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nevins, A., Pesetsky, D., and Rodrigues, C. 2009. “Pirahã exceptionality: A reassessment”. Language 85(2): 355–404. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Pericliev, V. 2004. “Universals, their violation and the notion of phonologically peculiar languages”. Journal of Universal Language 51: 1–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Sapir, E. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmandt-Besserat, D. 1992. Before Writing: From Counting to Cuneiform. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scribner, S. and Cole, M. 1981. The Psychology of Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seiler, H. 1995. “Iconicity between indicativity and predicativity”. In S. Raffaele (ed), Iconicity in Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 141–151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Serafini, L. 1983. Codex Seraphinianus. 1st American edition. New York: Abbeville Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tagliavini, C. 1949. “Di alcune denominazioni della papilla”. Annali dell’Instituto Universitario di Napoli NS 31: 341–378.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walker, W. and Sarbaugh, J. 1993. “The early history of the Cherokee syllabary”. Ethnohistory 40(1): 70–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watson, R.A. 1976. “Laws, systems, certainty, and particularities”. American Anthropologist 78(2): 341–344. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wiese, H. 2003. Numbers, Language, and the Human Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wohlgemuth, J. and Cysouw, M. (eds). 2010. Rethinking Universals: How Rarities Affect Linguistic Theory. Mouton: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, J. and Norman, D.A. 1995. “A representational analysis of numeration systems”. Cognition 571: 271–295. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Fernández Cadenas, Nerea
2025. Numbers on the Visigothic Slates: A Cognitive Approach. Topics in Cognitive Science DOI logo
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 29 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue