Advertisement

The use(s) of is in mathematics

  • Paul Christian DawkinsEmail author
  • Matthew Inglis
  • Nicholas Wasserman
Article

Abstract

This paper analyzes some of the ambiguities that arise among statements with the copular verb “is” in the mathematical language of textbooks as compared to day-to-day English language. We identify patterns in the construction and meaning of “is” statements using randomly selected examples from corpora representing the two linguistic registers. We categorize these examples according to the part of speech of the object word in the grammatical form “[subject] is [object].” In each such grammatical category, we compare the relative frequencies of the subcategories of logical relations conveyed by that construction. Within some categories we observe that the same grammatical structure alternatively conveys different logical relations and that the intended logical relation can only sometimes be inferred from the grammatical cues in the statement itself. This means that one can only interpret the intended logical relation by already knowing the relation among the semantic categories in question. Such ambiguity clearly poses a communicative challenge for teachers and students. We discuss the pedagogical significance of these patterns in mathematical language and consider the relationship between these patterns and mathematical practices.

Keywords

Mathematical language Corpus analysis Copular verbs 

Notes

References

  1. Alcock, L., Inglis, M., Lew, K., Mejía-Ramos, J. P., Rago, P., & Sangwin, C. (2017). Comparing expert and learner mathematical language: A corpus linguistics approach. In A. Weinberg, C. Rasmussen, J. Rabin, M. Wawro, & S. Brown (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21 st annual conference on Research on Undergraduate Mathematics Education (pp. 478–484). San Diego, CA: RUME.Google Scholar
  2. Alcock, L., & Simpson, A. (2002). Definitions: Dealing with categories mathematically. For the Learning of Mathematics, 22(2), 28–34.Google Scholar
  3. Alcock, L., & Simpson, A. (2017). Interactions between defining, explaining and classifying: The case of increasing and decreasing sequences. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 94(1), 5–19.Google Scholar
  4. Anthony, L. (2015). TagAnt (version 1.2.0) [computer software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. Available from http://www.laurenceanthony.net/. Accessed October 2016.Google Scholar
  5. Barwell, R. (2005). Ambiguity in the mathematics classroom. Language and Education, 19(2), 117–125.Google Scholar
  6. Borden, L. L. (2011). The ‘Verbification’ of mathematics: Using the grammatical structures of Mi’kmaq to support student learning. For the Learning of Mathematics, 31(3), 8–13.Google Scholar
  7. Davies, M. (2017). Word frequency data from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and British National Corpus (BNC). Retrived April 7 2017, from http://www.wordfrequency.info/
  8. Dawkins, P. C. (2017). On the importance of set-based meanings for categories and connectives in mathematical logic. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 3(3), 496–522.Google Scholar
  9. Durand-Guerrier, V. (1996). Conditionals, necessity, and contingency in mathematics classes. Paper presented at DIMACS Symposium: Teaching Logic and Reasoning in an Illogical World, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, July 25–26.Google Scholar
  10. Durand-Guerrier, V. (2008). Truth versus validity in mathematical proof. ZDM, 40, 373–384.Google Scholar
  11. Edwards, B., & Ward, M. (2008). The role of mathematical definitions in mathematics and in undergraduate mathematics courses. In M. Carlson & C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Making the connection: Research and teaching in undergraduate mathematics education, MAA notes #73 (pp. 223–232). Washington, DC: Mathematics Association of America.Google Scholar
  12. Epp, S. (2009). Proof issues with existential quantification. In F.-L. Lin, F.-J. Hsieh, G. Hanna, & M. de Villiers (Eds.), Proceedings of ICMI study 19: Proof and proving in mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 154–159). Taipei, Taiwan: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Geist, L. (2008). Predication and equation in copular sentences: Russian vs. English. In I. Comorovski & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Existence: Semantics and Syntax, Volume 84 of the Studies in Linguistic Philosophy series (pp. 79–105). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Some aspects of Sociolinguistics. In Interactions between Linguistics and Mathematical Education: Final report of the Symposium sponsored by UNESCO, CEDO and ICMI, Nairobi, Kenya (pp. 64–73). Nairobi: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  15. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Sociolinguistics aspects of mathematical education. In M. Halliday (Ed.), The social interpretation of language and meaning (pp. 194–204). London: University Park Press.Google Scholar
  16. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edwards Arnold.Google Scholar
  17. Herbel-Eisenmann, B., & Wagner, D. (2010). Appraising lexical bundles in mathematics classroom discourse: Obligation and choice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(1), 43–63.Google Scholar
  18. Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Wagner, D., & Cortes, V. (2010). Lexical bundle analysis in mathematics classroom discourse: The significance of stance. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(1), 23–42.Google Scholar
  19. Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., & Otten, S. (2011). Mapping mathematics in classroom discourse. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(5), 451–485.Google Scholar
  20. Hub, A., & Dawkins, P. C. (2018). On the construction of set-based meanings for the truth of mathematical conditionals. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 50, 90–102.Google Scholar
  21. Johansson, S., Leech, G. N., & Goodluck, H. (1978). Manual of information to accompany the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus of British English, for use with digital computers. Department of English, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  22. Kucera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Mejía-Ramos, J. P., Alcock, L., Lew, K., Rago, P., Sangwin, C., & Inglis, M. (in press). Using corpus linguistics to investigate mathematical explanation. In F. Eugen & C. Mark (Eds.), Methodological advances in experimental philosophy. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  24. Monaghan, F. (1999). Judging a word by the company it keeps: The use of concordancing software to explore aspects of the mathematics register. Language and Education, 13(1), 59–70.Google Scholar
  25. Morgan, C. (1996). “The language of mathematics”: Towards a critical analysis of mathematics texts. For the Learning of Mathematics, 16(3), 2–10.Google Scholar
  26. Morgan, C. (1998). In P. Ernest (Ed.), Writing mathematically: The discourse of investigation, Studies in mathematics education series Vol. 9. Bristol, PA: Falmer.Google Scholar
  27. Moschkovich, J. N. (1999). Supporting the participation of English language learners in mathematical discussions. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(1), 11–19.Google Scholar
  28. O’Halloran, K. (2005). Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism, and visual images. London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
  29. Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communications in the mathematics classroom. London, UK: Routlege and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  30. Place, U. T. (1970). Is consciousness a brain process? In C. V. Borst (Ed.), The mind-brain identity theory (pp. 42–51). London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  31. Rorty, R. (1965). Mind-body identity, privacy, and categories. The Review of Metaphysics, 19(1), 24–54.Google Scholar
  32. Rowland, T. (1995). Hedges in mathematics talk: Linguistic pointers to uncertainty. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29(4), 327–353.Google Scholar
  33. Rowland, T. (1999). Pronouns in mathematics talk: Power, vagueness and generalisation. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(2), 19–26.Google Scholar
  34. Russell, B. (1919). Introduction to mathematical philosophy. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  35. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  36. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2007). The linguistic challenges of mathematics teaching and learning: A research review. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23, 139–159.Google Scholar
  37. Shinno, Y., Miyakawa, T., Iwasaki, H., Kunimune, S., Mizoguchi, T., Ishii, T., & Abe, Y. (2018). Challenges in curriculum development for mathematical proof in secondary school: Cultural dimensions to be considered. For the Learning of Mathematics, 38(1), 26–30.Google Scholar
  38. Veel, R. (1999). Language, knowledge and authority in school mathematics. In F. Christie (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic and social processes (pp. 185–216). New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  39. Wagner, D., & Herbel-Eisenmann, B. (2008). “Just don’t”: The suppression and invitation of dialogue in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(2), 143–157.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematical SciencesNorthern Illinois UniversityDeKalbUSA
  2. 2.Loughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK
  3. 3.Teachers CollegeColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations