Abstract
The objective of this paper is to study students’ difficulties when they have to ascribe the same meaning to different representations of the same mathematical object. We address two theoretical tools that are at the core of Radford’s cultural semiotic and Godino’s onto-semiotic approaches: objectification and the semiotic function. The analysis of a teaching experiment involving high school students working on the tangent, shows how students’ difficulties in ascribing sense to different representations of a common mathematical object can be traced back to the kind of objectification processes and semiotic functions they are able to establish.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Biza, I., Christou, C., & Zachariades, T. (2008). Student perspectives on the relationship between a curve and its tangent in the transition from Euclidean geometry to analysis. Research in Mathematics Education, 10(1), 53–70.
D’Amore, B. (2001). Concettualizzazione, registri di rappresentazioni semiotiche e noetica. [Conceptualization, semiotic registers and noetics]. La matematica e la sua didattica, 2, 150–173.
D’Amore, B. (2006). Oggetti matematici e senso. Le trasformazioni semiotiche cambiano il senso degli oggetti matematici. [Mathematical objects and sense. Semiotic transformations change the sense of mathematical objects]. La matematica e la sua didattica, 4, 557–583.
D’Amore, B., & Godino, D. J. (2006). Punti di vista antropologico ed ontosemiotico in Didattica della Matematica. [Anthropological and ontosemiotic points of view in mathematics education]. La matematica e la sua didattica, 1, 9–38.
Dodero, N., Baroncini, P., & Manfredi, R. (1998a). Nuovi elementi di matematica. [New elements of mathematics]. Volume A. Milan: Ghisetti & Corvi.
Dodero, N., Baroncini, P., & Manfredi, R. (1998b). Nuovi elementi di matematica. [New elements of mathematics]. Volume B. Milan: Ghisetti & Corvi.
Duval, R. (1993). Registres de représentations sémiotique et fonctionnement cognitif de la pensée. [Semiotic registers and cognitive functioning of thinking]. Annales de Didactique et de Sciences Cognitives, 5, 37–65.
Duval, R. (1995). Semiosis et Pensée humaine. [Semiosis and human thinking]. Berne: Peter Lang.
Duval, R. (2006). Trasformazioni di rappresentazioni semiotiche e prassi di pensiero matematico. [Transformations of semiotic representations and praxes of mathematical thinking]. La matematica e la sua didattica, 4, 585–619.
Eco, U. (1979). Trattato di semiotica generale. [Treatise of general semiotics]. Milano: Bompiani.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Font, V., & Contreras, A. (2008). The problem of the particular and its relation to the general in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69, 33–52.
Font, V., Godino, D. J., & D’Amore, B. (2007). Ontosemiotic approach of representation in mathematics education. For the Learning of Mathematics, 27(2), 2–14.
Font, V., Godino, J., & Contreras, A. (2008). From representations to onto-semiotic configurations in analysing mathematics teaching and learning processes. In L. Radford, G. Schubring, & F. Seeger (Eds.), Semiotics in mathematics education (pp. 157–173). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Font, V., Godino, J. D., Planas, N., & Acevedo, J. I. (2010). The object metaphor and sinecdoque in mathematics classroom discourse. For the Learning of Mathematics, 30(1), 15–19.
Frid, S. (1991). Three approaches to undergraduate calculus instruction: Their nature and potential impact on students’ language use and source of conviction. In E. Dubinsky, A. H. Schoenfel, & J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education. I (pp. 69–100). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
Godino, J. (2002). Un enfoque ontológico y semiótico de la cognición matemática. [An ontological and semiotic approach to mathematical cognition]. Recherche en Didactique des Mathématiques, 22, 2.3, p. 5–6, appendix.
Hjemslev, L. (1943). Omkring sprogteoriens grundlæggelse. Danish original English edition: Prolegomena to a theory of language. 1961. Madison: University of Winconsin.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination and reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Katz, V. J. (2009). A history of mathematics. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from. New York: Basic Books.
Malaspina, U., & Font, V. (2010). The role of intuition in the solving of optimization problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics. doi:10.1007/s10649-010-9243-8.
Moreira, V., & Pinto, M. M. (2004). Technical school students’ conceptions of tangent lines. In H. M. Johnsen & F. A. Berit (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 4, pp. 33–40). Norway: Bergen University College.
Pech, E., Crisologo, D., & Martinez-Sierra, G. (2009). From the Euclidean to the Leibnizian conception. Tangent’s case in the mathematical convention frame. North American chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Atlanta, GA, Sep 23, 2009. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p369924_index.html.
Potari, D., Zachariades, T., Christou, C., Kyriazis, G., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2006). Teachers’ mathematical and pedagogical awareness in calculus teaching. In S. Alatorre, J. L. Cortina, M. Sáiz, & A. Méendez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 846–848). Mérida, México: Universidad Pedagógica Nacional.
Radford, L. (2000). Signs and meanings in students’ emergent algebraic thinking: A semiotic analysis. Educational Studies in Mathematics., 42, 237–268.
Radford, L. (2003). Gestures, speech, and the sprouting of signs. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(1), 37–70.
Radford, L. (2004). La généralisation mathématique comme processus sémiotique. [Mathematical generalization as a semiotic process]. In G. Arrigo (Ed.), Atti del convegno di didattica della matematica 2004. Locarno, Alta Scuola Pedagogica (pp. 11–27). Locarno: Alta Scuola Pedagogica.
Radford, L. (2005). Body, tool, and symbol: Semiotic reflections on cognition. In: E. Simmt & B. Davis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2004 annual meeting of the Canadian mathematics education study group (pp. 111–117).
Radford, L. (2006). The anthropology of meaning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1–2), 39–65.
Radford, L. (2008). The ethics of being and knowing: Towards a cultural theory of learning. In L. Radford, G. Schubring, & F. Seeger (Eds.), Semiotics in mathematics education (pp. 215–234). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Tall, D. (1987). Constructing the concept image of a tangent. In J. Bergeron, N. Herscovics, & C. Kieran (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 69–75). Montréal, Canada: Université de Montréal.
Thompson, P. W. (1991). Students, functions, and the undergraduate curriculum. In E. Dubinsky, A. H. Schoenfel, & J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education. I (pp. 21–44). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
Ullmann, S. (1962). Semántica. Introducción a la ciencia del significado. [Semantics. Introduction to the science of meaning.]. Madrid: Aguilar.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. (Trans. A Kozulin). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank the three anonymous reviewers as well as Norma Presmeg for their valuable and insightful comments on a previous version of this paper. A special thank to Bruno D’Amore for everything I have learned from him during his supervision of my Ph.D thesis, both at personal and scientific level. I would like to thank him also for his important contributions and revisions of this paper. I also would like to thank Raymond Duval, Juan Godino, and Luis Radford for the fruitful discussions, the thorough explanations, and their infinite kindness and generosity during my visits in Lille, Granada, and Sudbury. Last but not least, I wish to thank the teacher, Carmen Tabellini, and her students of the Liceo “E. Fermi”, Bologna, for their kind hospitality and their committed collaboration during the experiment.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Santi, G. Objectification and semiotic function. Educ Stud Math 77, 285–311 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9296-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9296-8