The limits of counting: Numerical cognition between evolution and culture

Science

Volumn 319, Issue 5860, 2008, Pages 213-215

  Beller, Sieghard ^a   Bender, Andrea ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COGNITION; CULTURE; EVOLUTION; KNOWLEDGE; NUMERICAL METHOD;

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; COGNITION; CULTURAL FACTOR; EVOLUTION; GEOGRAPHY; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; MATHEMATICS; NOMENCLATURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

COGNITION; CULTURE; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MATHEMATICS; PAPUA NEW GUINEA; VOCABULARY;

MELANESIA; PACIFIC ISLANDS; PACIFIC OCEAN; POLYNESIA;

EID: 38149113939     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: 10959203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1148345     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. P. Gordon, Science 306, 496 (2004); published online 19 August 2004 (10.1126/science.1094492).
2. D. L. Everett, Curr. Anthropol. 46, 621 (2005).
3. S. Dehaene, Cognition 44, 1 (1992).
4. S. Dehaene, The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1997).
5. H. Wiese, Numbers, Language, and the Human Mind (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2003).
6. H. Wiese, Lingua 117, 758 (2007).
7. R. S. Nickerson, Hum. Factors 30, 181 (1988).
8. J. Zhang, D. A. Norman, Cognition 57, 271 (1995).
9. K. C. Fuson, Y. Kwon, in Language in Mathematical Education: Research and Practice, K. Durkin, B. Shire, Eds. (Open Univ. Press, Milton Keynes, PA, 1991), pp. 211-226.
10. D. C. Geary, C. C. Bow-Thomas, F. Liu, R. S. Siegler, Child Dev. 67, 2022 (1996).
11. K. Miller, C. M. Smith, J. Zhu, H. Zhang, Psychol. Sci. 6, 56 (1995).
12. P. Pica, C. Lemer, V. Izard, S. Dehaene, Science 306, 499 (2004).
13. G. Ifrah, From One to Zero: A Universal History of Numbers (Viking, New York, 1985).
14. K. Menninger, Number Words and Number Symbols (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1969).
15. F. Klix, Erwachendes Denken: Geistige Leistungen aus evolutionspsychologischer Sicht (Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, 1993).
16. G. A. Lean, Counting Systems of Papua New Guinea (Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Papua New Guinea University of Technology, Lae, 1992).
17. J. Lynch, M. Ross, T. Crowley, The Oceanic Languages (Curzon, Richmond, 2002).
18. S. Holzknecht, Pac. Linguist. A-70, 77 (1986).
19. J. Wassmann, P. R. Dasen, J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 25, 78 (1994).
20. C. M. Churchward, A New Fijian Grammar (Australasian Medical, Sydney, Australia, 1941).
21. Les Missionaires catholiques de cet Archipel, membres de la Congrégation des Sacrés-Coeurs de Picpus, Essai de Grammaire de la Langue des Isles Gambier ou Mangaréva (Imprimerie Zech et Fils, Braine-le-Comte, Belgium, 1908).
22. D. T. Tryon, Ed., Comparative Austronesian Dictionary: An Introduction to Austronesian Studies (Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 1995).
23. The common ancestor for a group of related languages, if not documented, is reconstructed by way of a systematic comparison of these languages. This method is inductive, but - because of the extensive database and the high convergence - the reconstructed number words for Proto-Oceanic can be regarded as firmly established. They are further supported by a comparison with other Austronesian languages ranging from Madagascar in the West to Easter Island in the East (22). This comparison shows that the development in parts of Melanesia must have taken place early on but still was an exception in the larger Austronesian cluster.
24. If varu was the principal counting unit of the specific sequences as indicated by cultural preferences, even the unusual steps (i.e., paua and tataua) could be explained, namely as short cuts to facilitate the representation of the incomplete units. The specific sequence would then be a modulo 40 system, in which units of 40 tauga were counted, and the remainder (if any occurred at all) was decomposed in 20 + 10 + n. This may not be the most efficient method of decomposition, but - given the generally decimal nature of the system - it was surely the most preferable. The next possible decomposition (20 + 10 + 5 + n) would have arbitrarily restricted the single numerals to n ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4}.
25. A. Bender, S. Beller, J. Polynesian Soc. 115, 7 (2006).
26. A. Bender, S. Beller, Ocean. Linguist. 45, 380 (2006).
27. A. Bender, S. Beller, J. Cognit. Cult. 7, 213 (2007).
28. The switch from 10 to 20 in the general sequence in Mangarevan is atypical in this regard. However, because many of the traditional numeration systems were replaced in colonial times before they were documented, information on a regular system may simply have been lost.
29. P. Bellwood, The Polynesians: Prehistory of an Island People (Thames and Hudson, London, 1987).
30. R. C. Green, M. Weisler, Asian Perspect. 41, 213 (2002).
31. P. V. Kirch, The Evolution of the Polynesian Chiefdoms (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1984).
32. These conclusions can be further corroborated by an analysis of the composition principles for the object-specific counting sequences. It shows that these specific counting sequences are derived from abstract counting sequences with the aid of residuals of numeral classifiers [which, in several languages, are obligatory in counting to specify and classify the counted objects, such as words like "sheet" in "two sheets of paper"; for more details see (26)].
33. M. Ascher, Ethnomathematics: A Multicultural View of Mathematical Ideas (Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA, 1991).
34. L. Feigenson, S. Dehaene, E. Spelke, Trends Cogn. Sci. 8, 307 (2004).
35. We are grateful to H. Spada for institutional support, to A. Rothe for assistance with the material, and to S. Mannion as well as two anonymous reviewers for discussion and valuable comments on earlier versions of this paper.