Advertisement

Synthese

pp 1–23 | Cite as

Quantity evaluations in Yudja: judgements, language and cultural practice

  • Susan RothsteinEmail author
  • Suzi Lima
S.I. : MathCogEncul
  • 70 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper we explore the interpretation of quantity expressions in Yudja, an indigenous language spoken in the Amazonian basin, showing that while the language allows reference to exact cardinalities, it does not generally allow reference to exact measure values. It does, however, allow non-exact comparison along continuous dimensions. We use this data to argue that the grammar of exact measurement is distinct from a grammar allowing the expression of exact cardinalities, and that the grammar of counting and the grammar of measurement may use numerals with different, though related interpretations. As Yudja shows, the language of measurement is not automatically acquired along with the knowledge of exact numeral expressions. We show that the ‘gap’ between prelinguistic intuitions about quantity in terms of numerosity and counting, which is bridged by the learning of language expressing exact cardinality, is paralleled by a similar gap between prelinguistic intuitions about quantity on a continuous dimension and measuring: this gap too must be bridged by language which expresses exact measure values. Our results suggest that the enculturation process by which we develop skills to perform abstract operations in the domain of measurement is (1) language dependent and (2) distinct from the process by which we learn to perform abstract calculations in the cardinal domain.

Keywords

Mathematical cognition and enculturation Number Quantity judgements Language Mass/count nouns Cardinality Counting Semantics of measurement 

Notes

Acknowledgements

First we would like to thank the Yudja people who generously contributed their time and knowledge to this documentation project. We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for very helpful comments on the first version of this paper, and to Markus Pantsar and Catarina Dutilh Novaes for advice and encouragement in making the revisions. Early versions of this material were presented at the 7th Cambridge conference on Language Endangerment (Cambridge UK, July 2017), at the Workshop on Language and Literacy Development in Multilingual and Multidialectal Contexts (Bar-Ilan University, March 2018) and at the Multilingualism and Multiculturalism Workshop (Bar Ilan University June 2018) We thank the participants at all these events for their helpful comments. We would like to acknowledge the financial support of the American Philosophical Society, and of dissertation grants to Suzi Lima from the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior and the National Science Foundation.

Funding

Funding was provided by Capes/Fulbright and NSF Dissertation Grant (Grant No. BCS-1226449).

References

  1. Barner, D., & Snedeker, J. (2005). Quantity judgements and individuation: Evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition, 97, 41–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barth, H., La Mont, K., Lipton, J., Dehaene, S., Kanwisher, N., & Spelke, E. (2006). Non-symbolic arithmetic in adults and young children. Cognition, 98(3), 199–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boolos, G. (1990). The standard equality of numbers. In G. Boolos (Ed.), Meaning and method: Essays in Honor of Hilary Putnam (pp. 261–277). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Reprinted in Logic, logic and logic, pp. 202–219, by R. Jeffrey, Ed., 1998, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.).Google Scholar
  4. Brannon, E. M., Abbott, S., & Lutz, D. J. (2004). Number bias for the discrimination of large visual sets in infancy. Cognition, 93(2), B59–B68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brannon, E. M., & Terrace, H. S. (1998). Ordering of the numerosities 1 to 9 by monkeys. Science, 282(5389), 746–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buldt, B., Löwe, B., & Müller, T. (2008). Towards a new epistemology of mathematics., 68, 309.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-008-9101-6.Google Scholar
  7. Bunt, H. C. (1985). Mass terms and model-theoretic semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cantlon, J. F., & Brannon, E. M. (2007). How much does number matter to a monkey (Macaca mulatta)? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 33(1), 32.Google Scholar
  9. Carey, S. (2001). Evolutionary and ontogenetic foundations of arithmetic. Mind and Language, 16(1), 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cheng, L. L.-S., & Sybesma, R. (1998). Yi-wan Tang, yi-ge Tang: Classifiers and massifiers. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series, 28(3), 385–412.Google Scholar
  12. Chierchia, G. (1998). Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of the semantic parameter. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and grammar (pp. 53–103). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chierchia, G. (2010). Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese, 174, 99–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chierchia, G., & Turner, R. (1988). Semantics and property theory. Linguistics and Philosophy, 11(3), 261–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clearfield, M., & Mix, K. (1999). Number versus contour length in infants’ discrimination of small visual sets. Psychological Science, 10(5), 408–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davidson, K., Eng, K., & Barner, D. (2012). Does learning to count involve a semantic induction? Cognition, 123(1), 162–173.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.12.01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Deal, A. R. (2017). Countability distinctions and semantic variation. Natural Language Semantics, 25(2), 125–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dehaene, S., Spelke, E., Pinel, P., Stanescu, R., & Tsivkin, S. (1999). Sources of mathematical thinking: Behavioural and brain-imaging evidence. Science, 284(5416), 97–974.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5416.970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Doetjes, J. S. (1997). Quantifiers and selection: On the distribution of quantifying expressions in French, Dutch and English. The Hague: HAG.Google Scholar
  20. Doetjes, J. S. (2012). Count/mass distinctions across languages. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, part III (pp. 2559–2580). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  21. Everett, D. (2005). Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã. Current Anthropology, 46, 621–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fargetti, C. (2001). Estudo fonológico e morfossintático da língua juruna. PhD dissertation, UNICAMP.Google Scholar
  23. Feigenson, L., Carey, S., & Spelke, E. (2002). Infants’ discrimination of number vs. continuous extent. Cognitive Psychology, 44(1), 33–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ferreira, M. L. (1997). When 1 + 1 ≠ 2. Making mathematics in central Brazil. American Ethnologist, 24(1), 132–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ferreira, M. L. (2015). Mapping time, space and the body: Indigenous knowledge and mathematical thinking in Brazil. Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Flombaum, J. I., Junge, J. A., & Hauser, M. D. (2005). Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) spontaneously compute addition operations over large numbers. Cognition, 97(3), 315–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frank, M., Everett, D., Fedorenko, E., & Gibson, E. (2008). Number as a cognitive technology: Evidence from Pirahã language and cognition. Cognition, 108(3), 819–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gil, D. (2013). Numeral Classifiers. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (Eds.), The World Atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
  29. Gillon, C. (2010). The mass/count distinction in Innu-aimun: Implications for the meaning of plurality. In WSCLA 15: The fifteenth workshop on structure and constituency in languages of the Americas (pp. 12–29).Google Scholar
  30. Gillon, C. (2012). Evidence for mass and count in Inuttut. Linguistic Variation, 12(2), 211–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gordon, P. (2004). Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia. Science, 306, 496–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Heck, R. (2011). Frege’s theorem. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hofweber, T. (2005). Number determiners, numbers, and arithmetic. The Philosophical Review, 114(2), 179–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Khrizman, K., Landman, F., Lima, S., Rothstein, S., & Schvarcz, B. (2015). Portion readings are count readings not measure readings. In T. Brochhagen, F. Roelofsen & N. Theiler (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Amsterdam colloquium (pp. 197–206). http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mVkOTk2N/AC2015-proceedings.pdf. Accessed 21 Nov 2018.
  35. Krifka, M. (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, & P. von Emde Boas (Eds.), Semantics and contextual expression. Dordrecht: Foris Publication.Google Scholar
  36. Krifka, M. (1992). Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In I. A. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical matters. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
  37. Landman, F. (1989). Groups. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12(5), 559–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Landman, F. (2004). Indefinites and the type of sets. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Landman, F. (2016). Iceberg semantics for count nouns and mass nouns: The evidence from portions. In The Baltic international yearbook of cognition, logic and communication (Vol. 11).  https://doi.org/10.4148/1944-3676.1107.
  40. Li, X. P. (2011). On the semantics of classifiers in Chinese. Ph.D. dissertation, Bar-Ilan University.Google Scholar
  41. Li, X. P. (2013). Numeral classifiers in Chinese. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Li, X. P., & Rothstein, S. (2012). Measure readings of Mandarin classifier phrases and the particle de. Language and Linguistics, 13(4), 693–741.Google Scholar
  43. Lima, S. (2014). The grammar of individuation and counting. PhD dissertation, UMass Amherst.Google Scholar
  44. Lima, S. (2016). Container constructions in Yudja: Locatives, individuation and measure. In Baltic international yearbook of cognition, logic and communication (Vol. 11).  https://doi.org/10.4148/1944-3676.1109.
  45. Lima, S. (2018a). Quantity judgment studies in Yudja (Tupi): Acquisition and interpretation of nouns. Glossa. Special volume: The acquisition of mass-count distinction across languages and populations.Google Scholar
  46. Lima, S. (2018b). New perspectives on the count-mass distinction: Understudied languages and psycholinguistics. Language and Linguistics Compass. Google Scholar
  47. Lima, S., Li, P., & Snedeker, J. (2016). Counting on a count list: what Yudja tells us about number word acquisition. Poster at the 41st CUNY University conference on language development. Boston, Nov 4–6, 2016.Google Scholar
  48. Lima, S., & Rothstein, S. (2017). Borrowing of Brazilian Portuguese measure words in Yudja. Talk presented at Cambridge conference on language endangerment.Google Scholar
  49. Lima, S., & Snedeker, J. (2015). On the acquisition and interpretation of container phrases in English. In 28th Annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, USC.Google Scholar
  50. Linnebo, Ø. (2009). The individuation of the natural numbers. In O. Bueno & Ø. Linnebo (Eds.), New waves in philosophy of mathematics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  51. Lipton, J., & Spelke, E. (2003). Origins of number sense, large-number discrimination in human infants. Psychological Science, 14(5), 396–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lipton, J., & Spelke, E. (2004). Discrimination of large and small numerosities by human infants. Infancy, 5(3), 271–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mathieu, E. (2012). On the mass/count distinction in Ojibwe. In D. Massam (Ed.), Count and mass across languages. Oxford: Oxford Press.Google Scholar
  54. McCrink, K., & Wynn, K. (2004). Large number addition and subtraction by 9-month old infants. Psychological Science, 15(11), 776–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Menary, R. (2015). In T. Metzinger & J. M. Windt (Eds.), Open MIND: 25(T). Frankfurt: MIND Group.  https://doi.org/10.15502/9783958570818.Google Scholar
  56. Mendonça, P. (2017). Corpo preparado, alma protegida: jeitos de cuidar e modos de aprender no crescimento da criança Yudja. MA thesis, University of São Paulo.Google Scholar
  57. Pantsar, M. (2014). An empirically feasible approach to the epistemology of arithmetic. Synthese, 191(17), 4201–4229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Parsons, C. (1995). Frege’s theory of number. In W. Demopolous (Ed.), Frege’s philosophy of mathematics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Pelletier, J. (1975). Non-singular reference: Some preliminaries. Philosophia, 5(4), 451–465. (reprinted in Pelletier 1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pica, P., Lemer, C., Izard, V., & Dehaene, S. (2004). Exact and approximate arithmetic in an Amazonian Indigene Group. Science, 306, 499–503.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1102085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pires de Oliveira, R., & Rothstein, S. (2011). Bare nouns in are mass in Brazilian Portuguese. Lingua, 121(15), 2153–2175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rips, L. (2011). Lines of thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rothstein, S. (2009). Individuating and measure readings of classifier constructions: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics, 1, 106–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rothstein, S. (2013). A fregean semantics for number words. In M. Aloni, M. Franke & F. Roelofsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 179–186). https://www.events.illc.uva.nl/AC/AC2013/uploaded_files/inlineitem/23_Rothstein.pdf. Accessed 21 Nov 2018.
  65. Rothstein, S. (2016). Counting and Measuring: A theoretical and crosslinguistic account. In The Baltic international yearbook of cognition, logic and communication (Vol. 11). http://dx.doi.org/10.4148/1944-3676.1106.
  66. Rothstein, S. (2017). Semantics for counting and measuring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rothstein, S. (to appear). Count nouns vs. mass nouns. In L. Matthewson, C. Meier, H. Rullman & T. E. Zimmerman (Eds.), Wiley’s companion to semantics (SemCom). Downloadable from https://www.academia.edu/34700872/Count_nouns_vs._Mass_nouns. Accessed 21 Nov 2018.
  68. Sawatzki, C. (2015). Context counts: The potential of realistic problems to expose and extend social and mathematical understandings. In M. Marshman, V. Geiger & A. Bennison (Eds.), Mathematics education in the margins (Proceedings of the 38th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 555–562). Sunshine Coast: MERGA.Google Scholar
  69. Scontras, G. (2014). The semantics of measurment. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  70. Wilhelm, A. (2008). Bare nouns and number in Dëne Suliné. Natural Language Semantics, 16, 39–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wiltschko, M. (2012). Decomposing the mass/count distinction: Evidence from languages that lack it. In Count and mass across languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Wynn, K. (1990). Children’s understanding of counting. Cognition, 36, 155–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wynn, K. (1992). Children’s acquisition of the number words and the counting system. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 220–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Xu, F., & Carey, S. (1996). Infants metaphysics: The case of numerical identity. Cognitive Pyschology, 30, 111–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Xu, F., & Spelke, E. S. (2000). Large number discrimination in 6-month-old infants. Cognition, 74(1), B1–B11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bar-Ilan UniversityRamat GanIsrael
  2. 2.University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Universidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations