SubjectSpecific Academic Language Versus Mathematical Discourse
Abstract
The significance of language for the learning of mathematics has long been thematised in mathematics education research. Since Austin and Howson provided the first overview of the state of research in 1979, the field has become more differentiated. The present article will discuss one area of research emerging from this differentiation—multilingual contexts. This example shows how mathematics and language as a research field has developed from dichotomous approaches towards the idea that the language of mathematics is characterised differently in different cultural and group contexts, thus emphasising discursive aspects. This trend gives rise to the question of how the individual resources of participants can be acknowledged and exploited in groups with different abilities, while simultaneously providing the participants with the necessary linguistic support to participate in the linguistic discourse of that group.
Keywords
Mathematical discourse Academic language Multilingual context Social interaction Interactionistic approaches of interpretive classroom research1 The Development of a Linguistic Perspective on the Learning of Mathematics

“special vocabulary used to name mathematical objects and processes”

“the development of dense groups of words such as lowest common denominator”

“the transformation of processes into objects”.
According to Morgan, specialised domains of activity have their own specialised vocabularies and ways of speaking and writing. Pimm (1987) makes reference to the existence of a mathematical register in the English language (or any other language). Registers are specialized uses and meanings of a specific language for mathematical purposes (e.g., specialized meanings and purposes for vocabulary (words, phrases or expressions) as well as grammatical structures) that can be chosen by an individual to fit a situation or a context. Thus, a register is clearly different from a dialect, which is usually limited to a specific geographical region. Using or developing a register, according to Pimm, is not only a question of using technical terms; it is also about using certain phrases and characteristic modes of arguing (p. 76). In this context, Pimm draws on Halliday’s (1975, p. 65) definition of a register as “a set of meanings that is appropriate to a particular function of language, together with the words and structures which express these meanings” (Pimm, 1987, p. 75). Halliday says about the “mathematical register” that one can refer to it “in the sense of the meaning that belongs to the language of mathematics” (Pimm, 1987, p. 76). The mathematical register, like any other linguistic register, consists of words, phrases, and expressions borrowed from the English language (or any other language) and of terms that are solely created to describe something that only exists in mathematical contexts and has no meaning or different meaning outside of those. Pimm elaborates the creation of a mathematical register. For him, one important possibility is using the role of metaphors as a tool to create meaning. Pimm speaks of extramathematical metaphors and structural metaphors, seen as the two “main sources of metaphor” (Pimm, 1987, p. 93) to construe the mathematical register. The former are used to “explain or interpret mathematical ideas and processes in terms of realworld events […], e.g. a graph is a picture”, while the latter involve “a metaphoric extension of ideas from within mathematics itself” (Pimm, 1987, p. 95). In accordance with Hymes (1972), Pimm attaches a particular importance to “communicative competence” (p. 4) in mastering a language or language style. This is the ability to use language in social situations, i.e., in context. Like Halliday (1989), Pimm sees the learning of language as a process that depends on the language not being isolated from the context; indeed, it is always in context that the language must be invested with meaning. Only through learning language in context do learners become able to apply different linguistic styles appropriately in the respective situation: “Communicative competence, then, involves knowing how to use and comprehend styles of language appropriate to particular social circumstances” (Pimm, 1987, p. 4).
Although the dependence of mathematical language on respective contexts was thus postulated at an early stage, the contrasting notion of the universality of this language persisted for a long time—and unfortunately can still be seen in many studies today. However, comparison studies carried out in various cultures consistently concluded that the notion of mathematics as a universal language, a language that could be learnt regardless of cultural or nativelanguage influence, was far less frequently appropriate than often being suggested. Recognition of the culture and thus also languagedependent nature of mathematics, i.e., that native speakers of mathematics in fact speak this “language” differently in different cultures or groups, began to gain traction in the context of the increasing influence of the “ethnomathematical” stance (cf. D’Ambrosio, 1985). This approach emphasises that mathematics is sensitive to cultural idiosyncrasies, including those related to language (cf. Morgan, 2014), which has been confirmed in recent studies. This development occurred on a background of what Lerman (2000) calls the “social turn” of research on teaching and learning in mathematics education. The social turn, which appeared around the end of the 1980s, describes a development within mathematics education research where “the social origins of knowledge and consciousness” (p. 8) have increasingly been taken into consideration. This is not meant to imply that social factors have previously been ignored by other theories like Piaget’s theory of learning or radical constructivism, as they saw social interactions as stimuli for meaningmaking within an individual. However, social activity was now increasingly seen as the source producing meaning, thinking, and reasoning. Lerman suggests three primary disciplines which contributed to the development of the social turn: anthropology, sociology, and cultural psychology. Essentially, the social turn no longer meant studying a person and his or her meaningmaking separately, but taking into account the person’s actions within a social practice. This trend turned mathematics education into a mature field of study in which serious efforts are now being made towards the theorisation and problematisation of components, concepts, and methods, including language. Increased sensitivity to the role of the social environment within which mathematics education takes place has inevitably meant greater attention to language and all forms of communication within mathematical learning environments (cf. Morgan et al., 2014). Apart from the studies by D’Ambrosio, those by Bishop (1988), Cobb (1989), Lave and Wenger (1991) and Wertsch (1981) should be mentioned here.
In Germanlanguage research, the social turn was brought into clearer focus within the discussion through diverse studies using interactionist approaches of interpretive classroom research, for example those by Bauersfeld, Krummheuer and Voigt (see, among others, Bauersfeld, Krummheuer, & Voigt, 1988; Krummheuer, 1995). These studies explicitly renounce the previously dominant view that learning was merely an internal psychological phenomenon. The social turn and the inclusion of interactionist aspects of learning and teaching meant a shift(ing) of focus from the structure of objects to the structures of learning processes, and from the individual learner to the social interactions between learners (cf. Bauersfeld, 2000).
The transformed understanding of learning led to the development of theories that see meaning, thinking and reasoning as products of social activity. These are evidenced, for example, in the abovementioned interactionist approaches of interpretive classroom research. Thus, Krummheuer (1992, 2011) argues that learners are involved in “collective argumentations” in the learning of mathematics in primary school (Krummheuer, 1992, p. 143) and it is through their increasingly autonomous participation that they learn mathematics (cf. Krummheuer & Brandt, 2001). Similar ideas are reflected in recent work by Sfard (2008). Underlining the significance of language for subjectspecific learning, she writes that thinking is a form of communication and that learning mathematics means modifying and extending one’s discourse. So, following Krummheuer (2011), mathematics learning can be described as the “progress” of participation emerging from the coordination of interpretations in collective forms of argumentation. Sfard (2008, p. 92) suggests replacing the notion of “learningasacquisition” with that of “learningasparticipation” (p. 92). Lave and Wenger (1991, p. 35) conclude that the start of this kind of acquisition process can be understood as a “legitimate peripheral participation” (in German, “legitime periphere Partizipation”). A learning process can then be described on the interactional level as a path from legitimate peripheral participation towards being a “full participant” (p. 37). Based on the fundamental assumption of these approaches, i.e., that meaning is negotiated in interactions between several individuals and that social interaction is thus understood as constitutive of learning processes, language can no longer be only understood as the medium in which meaning is constructed; rather, speaking about mathematics in collective argumentations is in itself to be seen as the “doing” of mathematics and the development of meaning. Thus, language acquires a central significance, if not the central significance in the building of mathematical knowledge and the development of mathematical thought.

analysis of the development of students’ mathematical knowledge

understanding the shaping of mathematical activity

understanding processes of teaching and learning in relation to other social interactions

multilingual contexts.
Concerning the development of students’ mathematical knowledge, past research analysed the language of students drawing a direct link to their mathematical knowledge, viewing language as an unambiguous medium for transmitting ideas. However, this conception of language has been challenged on the basis of new insights about language and communication, based for example on the semiotics of Peirce, Wittgenstein’s idea of language games, and poststructuralist theories, which object to the existence of a stable relationship between a word and its referent. These theories have been integrated and developed further within mathematics education research, thus adding to notions of how mathematical learning can be understood.
One example of the inclusion of semiotics into mathematics education research is Steinbring’s (2006) theoretical concept of the epistemological triangle, which can be used to describe the way mathematical knowledge is developed. This is done by focusing on the relationship between representations of mathematical concepts (e.g., symbols, words, etc.) and the concepts themselves, as well as on how students’ previous knowledge and experience (“reference context”) mediates these relationships. The second subfield, which focuses on the shaping of mathematical activity, follows a different approach when looking at how mathematical knowledge is developed. Here Vygotsky’s perception of verbal language and other semiotic systems as tools affecting human activities is used as a basis. An example of this is the communicational theory of Sfard (2008), which does not differentiate between communicating in mathematical forms and doing mathematics/thinking mathematically. The way learners engage in mathematical activities can, therefore, be described by characterising the nature of mathematical language in detail. Using tools like Systemic Functional Linguistics or other tools which enable tracing the development of ideas or meanings within language practices help understand how students obtain their conceptions of mathematics which are carried into adulthood (e.g., Chapman, 2003). These kinds of analyses can, for example, help identify how people may be empowered with mathematics through attention to language (cf. Wagner, 2007) or through particular language practices. This stresses the significance of language aspects for learning mathematics not only for young learners in school but also for adults later in life. The third subfield is concerned with understanding processes of teaching and learning in social interactions. Here, studies in mathematics education are connected to the general notion which sees learning as a social activity and meaningmaking no longer as the activity of an individual but of an individual within a social environment. By using tools for analysing classroom interaction which often originate outside of mathematics education—for example, in ethnomethodology or linguistics—patterns within social interactions can be identified. These patterns—for example the funnelling pattern identified by Bauersfeld (1988)—have proven to be useful when working with teachers. In Germany, other recent studies in this field of interactionist approaches of interpretive classroom research in mathematics education include, for example, those by Brandt (2013), Fetzer and Tiedemann (2015), Krummheuer (2011, 2012), Meyer and Prediger (2011), Schütte and Krummheuer (2013) and Schütte (2009, 2014). Specific mathematical issues which emerge when analysing interaction within mathematics classrooms include sociomathematical norms (Yackel & Cobb, 1996) and forms of interaction which are specific to mathematics, like argumentation (Krummheuer, 1998; Planas & Morera, 2011) or group problem solving.
Primarily, however, I will focus on the last of these subfields. Uptodate international comparison studies are underway in this area concentrating on lower academic achievement and reduced educational opportunities among children with a migration background in many European countries; the present migration flows into Europe have also brought it into the focus of the current social and scientific discussion. The following will examine in more detail the research efforts on multilingual contexts and the developments in the field, in order to determine the tasks such research needs to address.
2 Multilingual Contexts—From Deficit to Resource
In their overview of the research field of mathematics and language, Austin and Howson (1979) also address multilingual contexts. They mention various studies from the end of the 1960s and the start of the 1970s, which present a rather fragmented picture. Alongside studies that address the topic in the context of cultural and linguistic diversity conditioned by migration, they also find studies that focus on learning among minorities in school systems that are characterised by majority groups. Furthermore, they dwell in particular on diverse studies that concentrate on learners who are taught in developing countries not in their native language but in the respective administrative languages, for example English. Their results appear just as diverse as the data they are based on. They point to positive effects of a bilingual education in developing countries in particular, though these results are partially contradicted by data gathered in other countries. Overall, a rather positive picture of learning under bilingual conditions is presented. Some studies show that bilingual children may well be in advantageous positions when compared to monolingual children (e.g., Gallop & Kirkman, 1972). The following decades, however, saw a change in this positive perspective on learning under conditions of cultural and linguistic diversity.
Around the end of the 1970s, an approach developed by Cummins in the context of English secondlanguage acquisition began to gain influence in the teaching and learning research community in relation to learning under bi or multilingual conditions. Cummins’ (1979, 2000) differentiation between “basic interpersonal communicative skills” (BICS) and “cognitive academic language proficiency” (CALP) had a fundamental influence on the consequent discussion in mathematics education. In Cummins’ work, “BICS” refers to fundamental communication and language abilities in everyday communication and interactions. These are situationdependent and are understood in an informal context. Meanwhile, “CALP” represents special schoolrelated cognitive language knowledge and abilities, which are relevant for example in subjectspecific discourse in the classroom. An essential aspect of Cummins’ concept is the idea that children can quickly gain abilities in their second language which they can use in everyday situations, but need significantly longer to achieve the competences in the academic language of the classroom that are required for academic success. With this conceptualisation, the positive perspective on cultural and linguistic diversity appears to fall away, with the focus placed instead on the fact that some children learn academically relevant linguistic competences more slowly than others, or not at all. This suggests a closeness to Halliday’s (1975) registerbased approach, mentioned above, which also influenced Pimm (1987). Pimm translates this approach more for mathematics in general, but in using the metaphor of the native speaker of mathematics he also distinguishes between natives and nonnatives in terms of deficits. However, he emphasises that more than speaking like a mathematician, the point is to learn “to mean like a mathematician” (p. 207); this suggests a closeness to the abovementioned approaches which consider the negotiation of meaning in interactions to be significant for the linguistic learning of mathematics. Cummins’ perspective, meanwhile, clearly focuses on a kind of “target register” which all children must learn to use in order to successfully participate in mathematics teaching. In the following years, this approach has influenced the emergence in the research field of a perspective focusing on children’s linguistic deficits above all, looking at the differences between children’s abilities and the demands of the target register. In Germany, a discussion developed around children’s abilities in an academic language (cf. the concept of “Bildungssprache”, Gogolin, 2006) in schools, seen as abilities which children need to master in order to be academically successful, resonating with Cummins’ concept. A definitive characteristic of this academic language is its conceptual written form, which means it shows high information density and contextindependence, and fundamentally does not correlate with the features of the everyday oral communication engaged in by many pupils (cf. Gogolin, 2006). Various authors point out that this independence from the present situation—often described in terms of the ability to decontextualise—represents a fundamental characteristic of the school discourse based on academic language (cf. Bernstein, 1996; Cloran, 1999; Gellert, 2011).
Current approaches in international research on mathematics education criticise this narrow view of mathematics learning from a linguistic perspective. Aukerman (2007), for example, argues that the ability to decontextualise language, i.e., to separate language from its context, as emphasised by Cummins, needs to be rethought. The CALPS concept is focused on leading children step by step from contextoriented language towards a language that is more contextindependent. Thus, context is seen as a transient step towards an academic learning. But for Aukerman, it does not make sense to talk about a decontextualisation of language. A language will always remain incomprehensible to a child if he or she cannot find a meaningful context; this is always determined by what the child already knows and trusts. Therefore, she suggests the alternative concept of “recontextualisation.” According to this, children acquire language that they need in order to carry out a range of academic and nonacademic tasks. To do this, they must use the support of linguistic competencies they already have (including the nonacademic competencies) and transform these competencies in new contexts. For Aukerman, the task of the teacher is therefore primarily to support children in their “recontextualisations,” acknowledging the children’s ways of thinking, and using this starting point to work together with the children to make new academic material meaningful and relevant to them.
In the Germanlanguage literature, Prediger (2002) uses the approaches of Bauersfeld (1988) and Maier and Voigt (1991) to consider communication processes in mathematics learning as intercultural communication. Her basic position is that all mathematical communication with learners is intercultural communication. The teacher functions as a representative of the mathematical culture while the learners apply their everyday culture—this suggests a closeness to Pimm’s (1987) notion of native speakers of mathematics. Prediger distances herself from a deficitoriented perspective, emphasising the importance of acknowledging differences among learners without imposing values. Further similarities with Pimm can be found in the way she sees the central barriers to communication not only in individual problems or problems emerging through interactions, but above all in problems rooted in the subjectspecific culture of mathematics (Prediger, 2002, p. 1).
Another link to interactionist approaches of interpretive classroom research can be observed here, which Prediger acknowledges. According to Krummheuer (1992), participants in classroom interaction interpret activities in extremely diverse ways, based on their different abilities and backgrounds. Following this interactionist perspective of mathematical learning, an individual contextdependent meaning is negotiated for the content of the respective situation in the interplay between connected oral contributions and accompanying actions. This is referred to as the “situation definition” (Krummheuer, 1992, p. 22). Situation definitions are constantly adapted and transformed with other participants in the interaction in “negotiations of meaning,” such that the process of the production of interpretations is never concluded. The production of “simple” situation definitions does not necessarily lead to new learning, however.
Standardised and routinised individual situation definitions are termed by Krummheuer (1992, p. 24) as “framings”, drawing on Goffman’s concept of “frame” (1974, p. 19). Pupils’ framings are often not in agreement with those of other pupils or the teacher (cf. Krummheuer, 1992). In this perspective, teaching can be understood in terms of the “juncture of framings from two different interactional practices, which itself becomes practice” (ibid. p. 64, translated by the author). Differences between framings can be explained in Pimm’s (1987) terms as differences between interactional practices of native and nonnative speakers, and in Prediger’s (2002) as differences between those representing the subjectspecific culture of mathematics and those representing the everyday culture. It is only the fundamental transformation or construction of framings that represents a learning process here, not the transformation of situation definitions (cf. also Schütte, 2009). According to Krummheuer, differences in framings between the participants, which obstruct the production of collective argumentations but at the same time represent the motor of learning, need to be increasingly coordinated by the individual with advanced skills in the interaction (usually the teacher).
With her “situatedsociocultural perspective”, Moschkovich (2002) also emphasises the significance of discourse in the learning of mathematics. The perspective completes a switch from a consideration of obstacles and deficits of learners to one of resources and competences of a diverse pupil population (cf. Planas & Civil, 2013, as well as the contrary results of Meyer & Prediger, 2011). In this perspective, the learning of mathematics always takes place in a public social and cultural context, and represents a discursive activity. However, there is not one correct mathematical discourse that needs to be achieved, contrary to what approaches based on the concept of register often suggest. Learners participate in mathematical discourses in different communities, using diverse resources from different registers in order to communicate successfully mathematically (Moschkovich, 2002). In contrast to registerbased approaches, the concept of mathematical discourse makes clear that interactional or nonlanguage aspects must take a central role in the understanding of the learning of mathematics.
3 Summary
In mathematical learning situations, it is perhaps not surprising that comprehension problems can emerge specifically among children with relatively unschooled or multilingual backgrounds as a result of migration, in classrooms where teaching is not accomplished in their native tongue and is directed by a native speaker of mathematics (Pimm, 1987), i.e., a representative of the mathematical culture (Prediger, 2002). In the context of the current discussion on children’s linguistic competences in school, this could be explained on the basis of children’s linguistic deficits. Many authors see a solution in training children’s linguistic competences in order to redress the presumed linguistic deficits in academic language (Cummins, 1979, 2000; Gogolin, 2006).
Potential misunderstandings in learning situations can also be explained by different interpretations of situations based on differing framings among participants (cf., Aukerman, 2007; Krummheuer, 1992; Moschkovich, 2002; Schütte, 2014), underlining the interactive aspect of doing mathematics. Significantly, however, according to Schütte (2014), framings of situations that differ from the framing of the teacher (or adult advanced in the interaction) can be reconstructed not only in children with presumed linguistic deficits, but also in children with monolingual and relatively schooled backgrounds. This enables us to hypothesise that the framings of children with clearly differing linguistic competencies can nevertheless be very close to each other, and that the framings of children with less linguistic deficits could develop just as large a difference to the framing of the teacher. This would resonate with Pimm (1987) and Prediger (2002) in suggesting that a perspective focusing exclusively on children’s possible linguistic deficits comes up short. It is certainly desirable for all participating children to be introduced to formal and subjectspecific mathematical language aspects, and for the teacher to act explicitly as a linguistic role model. But even when children have a linguistic role model, they need a teacher who engages with their interpretations and tries to modulate the basic framings of all participants to enable “learning despite differences”.
Due to the increasing diversity of pupil populations, situations of multiple different interpretations in negotiations of meaning in the classroom will become more and more prevalent. In spite of this diversity, children’s basic framings, emerging from an everyday life that is at least partially shared, might have more in common with each other than with the subjectspecific framing of the teacher based on his or her training in mathematical education—and they need to be appropriately coordinated. The goal should be firstly to accustom teachers to such diversity of interpretations of taught content, and, building on this, to develop their interpretive competency to recognise differences based on different framings, thematise them in the learning process, and thus produce the possibility of modulation. This is not to argue that teachers should not provide children with linguistic support. However, it seems that one future task of mathematics teaching will entail using children’s linguistic resources positively, for example allowing them to switch into their first language during group work, as well as providing them with opportunities to build linguistic competences in the principal teaching language.
References
 Aukerman, M. (2007). A culpable CALP: Rethinking the conversational/academic language proficiency distinction in early literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 60(7), 626–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Austin, J. L., & Howson, A. G. (1979). Language and mathematical education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 10, 161–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bauersfeld, H. (1988). Interaction, construction, and knowledge: Alternative perspectives for mathematics education. In T. J. Cooney & D. A. Grouws (Eds.), Effective mathematics teaching (pp. 27–46). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
 Bauersfeld, H. (2000). Radikaler Konstruktivismus, Interaktionismus und Mathematikunterricht. In E. Begemann (Ed.), Lernen verstehen—Verstehen lernen (pp. 117–144). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
 Bauersfeld, H., Krummheuer, G., & Voigt, J. (1988). Interactional theory of learning and teaching mathematics and related microethnographical studies. In H. G. Steiner & H. Vermandel (Eds.), Foundations and methodology of the discipline mathematics education (didactics of mathematics) (pp. 174–188). Antwerp: University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
 Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
 Bishop, A. J. (1988). Mathematics education in its cultural context. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 19(2), 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Brandt, B. (2013). Everyday pedagogical practices in mathematical play situations in German “Kindergarten”. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 84, 227–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Chapman, A. (2003). Language practices in school mathematics. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar
 Cloran, C. (1999). Contexts for learning. In F. Christie (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic and social processes (pp. 3–65). London: Casell.Google Scholar
 Cobb, P. (1989). Experiential, cognitive, and anthropological perspectives in mathematics education. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(2), 32–43.Google Scholar
 Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121–129.Google Scholar
 Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy. Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Google Scholar
 D’Ambrosio, U. (1985). Ethnomathematics and its place in the history and pedagogy of mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 5(1), 41–48.Google Scholar
 Fetzer, M., & Tiedemann, K. (2015). The interplay of language and objects in the mathematics classroom. In K. Krainer & N. Vondrová (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th congress of the European society for research in mathematics education (pp. 1414–1420). Prague, Czech Republic: CERME.Google Scholar
 Gallop, R., & Kirkman, D. F. (1972). An investigation into relative performances on a bilingual test paper in mechanical mathematics. Educational Research, 15(1), 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Gellert, U. (2011). Mediale Mündlichkeit und Dekontextualisierung. In S. Prediger & E. Özdil (Eds.), Mathematiklernen unter Bedingungen der Mehrsprachigkeit—Stand und Perspektiven der Forschung und Entwicklung in Deutschland (pp. 97–116). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
 Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. An essay on the organisation of experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
 Gogolin, I. (2006). Bilingualität und die Bildungssprache der Schule. In P. Mecheril & T. Quehl (Eds.), Die Macht der Sprachen. Englische Perspektiven auf die mehrsprachige Schule (pp. 79–85). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
 Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Some aspects of sociolinguistics. In Interactions between linguistics and mathematical education (pp. 64–73). Copenhagen: UNESCO.Google Scholar
 Halliday, M. A. K. (1989). Spoken and written language. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
 Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics. Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
 Krummheuer, G. (1992). Lernen mit „Format” Elemente einer interaktionistischen Lerntheorie. Diskutiert an Beispielen mathematischen Unterrichts. Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag.Google Scholar
 Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning. Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 229–269). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
 Krummheuer, G. (1998). Formats of argumentation in the mathematics classroom. In H. Steinbring, M. G. Bartolini Bussi, & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Language and communication in the mathematics classroom (pp. 223–234). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
 Krummheuer, G. (2011). Representation of the notion “learningasparticipation” in everyday situations of mathematics classes. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(1/2), 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Krummheuer, G. (2012). The “noncanonical” solution and the “improvisation” as conditions for early years mathematics learning processes: The concept of the “Interactional Niche in the Development of Mathematical Thinking” (NMT). Journal für MathematikDidaktik, 33(2), 317–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Krummheuer, G., & Brandt, B. (2001). Paraphrase und Traduktion. Partizipationstheoretische Elemente einer Interaktionstheorie des Mathematiklernens in der Grundschule. Weinheim: Beltz Verlag.Google Scholar
 Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Lerman, S. (2000). The social turn in mathematics education research. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 19–44). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
 Maier, H., & Schweiger, F. (1999). Mathematik und Sprache: Zum Verstehen und Verwenden von Fachsprache im Mathematikunterricht. Vienna: öbv und hpt.Google Scholar
 Maier, H., & Voigt, J. (Eds.). (1991). Interpretative Unterrichtsforschung. IDM 17. Aulis: Köln.Google Scholar
 Meyer, M., & Prediger, S. (2011). The use of first language Turkish as a resource—A German case study on chances and limits for building conceptual understanding. In M. Setati, T. Nkambule, & L. Goosen (Eds.), Proceedings of the ICMI study 21—Mathematics and language diversity (pp. 225–234). Sao Paulo.Google Scholar
 Morgan, C. (2014). Discourse analytic approaches in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 176–181). Dordrecht: Springer, Netherlands.Google Scholar
 Morgan, C., Craig, T., Schütte, M., & Wagner, D. (2014). Language and communication in mathematics education: An overview of research in the field. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 46, 843–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Moschkovich, J. (2002). A situated and sociocultural perspective on bilingual mathematics learners. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(2&3), 189–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
 Planas, N., & Civil, M. (2013). Languageasresource and languageaspolitical: Tensions in the bilingual mathematics classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 25, 361–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Planas, N., & Morera, L. (2011). Revoicing in processes of collective mathematical argumentation among students. In M. Pytlak, T. Rowland, & E. Swoboda (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh congress of the European society for research in mathematics education (pp. 1356–1365). Rzeszów, Poland: University of Rzeszów.Google Scholar
 Prediger, S. (2002). Kommunikationsbarrieren beim MathematiklernenAnalysen aus kulturalistischer Sicht. In S. Prediger, K. Lengnink, & F. Siebel (Eds.), Mathematik und Kommunikation (pp. 91–106). Mühltal: Verlag Allgemeine Wissenschaft.Google Scholar
 Schütte, M., & Krummheuer, G. (2013). Changing mathematical contentrelated domains—A genuine mathematical action? In A. M. Lindmeyer & A. Heinze (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education—Mathematics learning across the life span (Vol. 4, pp. 185–192). Kiel, Germany: Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften (IPN).Google Scholar
 Schütte, M. (2009). Sprache und Interaktion im Mathematikunterricht der Grundschule. Zur Problematik einer Impliziten Pädagogik für schulisches Lernen im Kontext sprachlichkultureller Pluralität. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
 Schütte, M. (2014). Languagerelated specialised learning in mathematics. A comparison of learning settings: Family, nursery and primary school. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 46(6), 923–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Steinbring, H. (2006). What makes a sign a “mathematical sign”? An epistemological perspective on mathematical interaction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1–2), 133–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Wagner, D. (2007). Students’ critical awareness of voice and agency in mathematics classroom discourse. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9(1), 31–50.Google Scholar
 Wertsch, J. V. (1981). The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
 Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar