Abstract
Although a general sense of the magnitude, quantity, or numerosity of objects is common in both untrained people and animals, the abilities to deal exactly with large quantities and to reason precisely in complex but well-specified situations—to behave formally, that is—are skills unique to people trained in symbolic notations. These symbolic notations typically employ complex, hierarchically embedded structures, which all extant analyses assume are constructed by concatenative, rule-based processes. The primary goal of this article is to establish, using behavioral measures on naturalistic tasks, that some of the same cognitive resources involved in representing spatial relations and proximities are also involved in representing symbolic notations—in short, that formal notations are a kind of diagram. We examined self-generated productions in the domains of handwritten arithmetic expressions and typewritten statements in a formal logic. In both tasks, we found substantial evidence for spatial representational schemes even in these highly symbolic domains.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen, C., &Hand, M.. (2001).Logic primer (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Allen, C., & Menzel, C. (2006)Logic daemon and quizmaster. Retrieved September 28, 2006, from logic.tamu.edu.
Alibali, M. W., &Goldin-Meadow, S. (1993). Gesture—speech mismatch and mechanisms of learning: What the hands reveal about a child’s state of mind.Cognitive Psychology,25, 468–523.
Anderson, J. R. (2005). Human symbol manipulation within an integrated cognitive architecture.Cognitive Science,29, 313–341.
Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors.Cognition,75, 1–28.
Cajori, F. (1928).A history of mathematical notations. La Salle, IL: Open Court.
Campbell, J. I. D. (1999). The surface form ? problem size interaction in cognitive arithmetic: Evidence against an encoding locus.Cognition,70, B25-B33.
Casasanto, D., &Boroditsky, L. (2003). Do we think about time in terms of space? In R. Alterman & D. Kirsh (Eds.),Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 216–221). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Casasanto, D., &Lozano, S. (2006). Metaphor in the mind and hands. In R. Sun & N. Miyake (Eds.),Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 142–147). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Casasanto, D., Phillips, W., &Boroditsky, L. (2003). Do we think about music in terms of space: Metaphoric representation of musical pitch. In R. Alterman & D. Kirsh (Eds.),Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 1323). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cheng, P., &Rojas-Anaya, H. (2006). A temporal signal reveals chunk structure in the writing of word phrases. In R. Sun & N. Miyake (Eds.),Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 160–165). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., &Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices.Cognitive Science,5, 121–152.
Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., &Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magitude.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,122, 371–396.
Fischer, M. H. (2001). Number processing induces spatial performance biases.Neurology,57, 822–826.
Fischer, M. H. (2003). Spatial representations in number processing—Evidence from a pointing task.Visual Cognition,10, 493–508.
Galison, P. (1997).Image and logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldin-Meadow, S., Wein, D., &Chang, C. (1992). Assessing knowledge through gesture: Using children’s hands to read their minds.Cognition & Instruction,9, 201–219.
Hadamard, J. (1949).The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Iverson, K. E. (1980). Notation as a tool of thought.Communications of the ACM,23, 444–465.
Johnson-Laird, P. (1983).Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kirshner, D. (1989). The visual syntax of algebra.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,20, 274–287.
Kirshner, D., &Awtry, T. (2004). Visual salience of algebraic transformations.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,35, 224–257.
Lakoff, G., &Nuñez, R. E. (2000).Where mathematics come from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.
Landy, D., &Goldstone, R. L. (2007). How abstract is symbolic thought?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,33, 720–733.
Landy, D., Havas, D., Glenberg, A., & Goldstone, R. L. (2007).The role of perceptual groups in natural language interpretations. Manuscript in preparation.
McNeil, N. M., &Alibali, M. W. (2004). You’ll see what you mean: Students encode equations based on their knowledge of arithmetic.Cognitive Science,28, 451–466.
McNeil, N. M., &Alibali, M. W. (2005). Why won’t you change your mind? Knowledge of operational patterns hinders learning and performance on equations.Child Development,76, 883.
Newell, A., &Simon, H. A. (1963). GPS: A program that simulates human thought. In E. A. Feigenbaum & J. Feldman (Eds.),Computers and thought. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Newell, A., &Simon, H. A. (1976). Computer science as empirical enquiry: Symbols and search.Communications of the ACM,19, 113–126.
Palmer, S. E. (1978). Fundamental aspects of cognitive representation. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.),Cognition and categorization (pp. 259–303). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Perini, L. The truth in pictures.Philosophy of Science,72, 262–285.
Stenning, K. (2002).Seeing reason: Image and language in learning to think. New York: Oxford University Press.
Stylianou, D. A. (2002). On the interaction of visualization and analysis: The negotiation of a visual representation in expert problem solving.Journal of Mathematical Behavior,21, 303–317.
Wilensky, U., &Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories—An embodied modeling approach.Cognition & Instruction,24, 171–209.
Zazkis, R., Dubinsky, E., &Dautermann, J. (1996). Coordinating visual and analytic strategies: A study of the students’ understanding of the group d4.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,27, 435–456.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was funded by Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences Grant R305H050116 and National Science Foundation ROLE Grant 0527920.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Landy, D., Goldstone, R.L. Formal notations are diagrams: Evidence from a production task. Mem Cogn 35, 2033–2040 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192935
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192935