Number Concepts: An Interdisciplinary Inquiry

Richard Samuels; Eric Snyder

doi:10.1017/9781009052337

Series: Elements in the Philosophy of Mathematics

Number Concepts

An Interdisciplinary Inquiry

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 January 2024

Richard Samuels and

Eric Snyder

Show author details

Richard Samuels: Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Eric Snyder: Affiliation:
Ashoka University

Summary

This Element, written for researchers and students in philosophy and the behavioral sciences, reviews and critically assesses extant work on number concepts in developmental psychology and cognitive science. It has four main aims. First, it characterizes the core commitments of mainstream number cognition research, including the commitment to representationalism, the hypothesis that there exist certain number-specific cognitive systems, and the key milestones in the development of number cognition. Second, it provides a taxonomy of influential views within mainstream number cognition research, along with the central challenges these views face. Third, it identifies and critically assesses a series of core philosophical assumptions often adopted by number cognition researchers. Finally, the Element articulates and defends a novel version of pluralism about number concepts.

Element contents

Summary
References

Get access

Keywords

number concepts number cognition representationalism core systems conceptual pluralism

Information

Type: Element
Information: Series: Elements in the Philosophy of Mathematics

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009052337 [Opens in a new window]

Online ISBN: 9781009052337

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication: 15 February 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Element purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barwise, J. and Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1:413–458.Google Scholar

Beck, J. (2019). Perception is analog: The argument from weber’s law. The Journal of Philosophy, 116(6):319–349.Google Scholar

Benacerraf, P. (1965). What numbers could not be. The Philosophical Review, 74(1):47–73.CrossRef Google Scholar

Benacerraf, P. (1973). Mathematical truth. Journal of Philosophy, 70(19):661–679.Google Scholar

Bermúdez, J. and Cahen, A. (2020). Nonconceptual mental content. In Zalta, E. N., editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Summer 2020 edition.Google Scholar

Bloom, P. and Wynn, K. (1997). Linguistic cues in the acquisition of number words. Journal of Child language, 24(3):511–533.Google Scholar

Burge, T. (2010). Origins of Objectivity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Butterworth, B. (2005). The development of arithmetical abilities. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(1):3–18.Google Scholar

Carey, S. (2000). The origin of concepts. Journal of Cognition and Development, 1(1):37–41.Google Scholar

Carey, S. (2009a). The Origin of Concepts. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Carey, S. (2009b). Where our number concepts come from. The Journal of Philosophy, 106(4):220–254.Google Scholar

Carey, S. (2011). Précis of the origin of concepts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(3):113–124.Google Scholar

Carey, S. and Barner, D. (2019). Ontogenetic origins of human integer representations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(10):823–835.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Cheung, P., Rubenson, M., and Barner, D. (2017). To infinity and beyond: Children generalize the successor function to all possible numbers years after learning to count. Cognitive Psychology, 92:22–36.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Chierchia, G. (1998a). Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of “semantic parameter.” In Rothstein, S., ed., Events and Grammar. Springer.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G. (1998b). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6:339–405.CrossRef Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1987). Language and Problems of Knowledge the Managua Lectures. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2014). The Minimalist Program. MIT press.Google Scholar

Clarke, S. and Beck, J. (2021). The number sense represents (rational) numbers. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 44:1–33.Google Scholar

Cole, J. (2013). Towards an institutional account of the objectivity, necessity, and atemporality of mathematics. Philosophia Mathematica, 21(1):9–36.Google Scholar

Cowie, F. (1998). What’s within? Nativism Reconsidered. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Davidson, K., Eng, K., and Barner, D. (2012). Does learning to count involve a semantic induction? Cognition, 123(1):162–173.Google Scholar

Davies, M. (2015). Knowledge–explicit, implicit and tacit: Philosophical aspects. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 13:74–90.Google Scholar

de Cruz, H. (2016). Numerical cognition and mathematical realism. Philosophers’ Imprint, 16:1–13.Google Scholar

Dehaene, S. (2011). The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dummett, M. (1991a). Frege: Philosophy of Mathematics. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Dummett, M. (1991b). The Logical Basis of Metaphysics. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Egan, F. (2012). Representationalism. In Margolis, E., Samuels, R., and Stich, S., editors, The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Cognitive Science, pages 249–272. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Field, H. (1989). Fictionalism, epistemology, and modality. Realism, Mathematics and Modality, pages 1–52. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. A. (1975). The Language of Thought, volume 5. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. A. (1981). The present status of the innateness controversy. In Fodor, J., editor, RePresentations: Philosophical Essays on the Foundations of Cognitive Science, pages 257–316. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. A. (1990). A theory of content i. In Fodor, J. A., editor, A Theory of Content. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. A. (1992). A theory of the child’s theory of mind. Cognition, 44:283–296.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Fodor, J. A. (1998). Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong. Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Frege, G. (1884). Grundlagen der Arithmetik. Wilhelm Koebner.Google Scholar

Frege, G. (1903). Grundgesetze der Arithmetik II. Olms.Google Scholar

Fuson, K. C. (2012). Children’s Counting and Concepts of Number. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar

Gallistel, C., Gelman, R., and Cordes, S. (2006). The cultural and evolutionary history of the real numbers. In Levinson, S. C. & Jaisson, P. editor, Evolution and Culture, page 247. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Gallistel, C. R. (2021). The approximate number system represents magnitude and precision. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 44:e187–e187.Google Scholar

Gallistel, C. R. and Gelman, R. (1992). Preverbal and verbal counting and computation. Cognition, 44(1–2):43–74.Google Scholar

Gallistel, C. R. and Gelman, R. (2000). Non-verbal numerical cognition: From reals to integers. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(2):59–65.Google Scholar

Geach, P. T. (1972). Logic Matters. University of California Press.Google Scholar

Gelman, R. and Gallistel, C. R. (1986). The Child’s Understanding of Number. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Gelman, S. A., Leslie, S.-J., Gelman, R., and Leslie, A. (2019). Do children recall numbers as generic? A strong test of the generics-as-default hypothesis. Language Learning and Development, 15(3):217–231.Google Scholar

Goodman, N. and Quine, W. V. O. (1947). Steps toward a constructive nominalism. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 12(4):105–122.Google Scholar

Grinstead, J., MacSwan, J., Curtiss, S., and Gelman, R. (1997). The independence of language and number. In Twenty-Second Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar

Hale, B. and Wright, C. (2001). The Reason’s Proper Study: Towards a Neo-Fregean Philosophy of Mathematics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Harnish, R. M. (2000). Minds, Brains, Computers: An Historical Introduction to the Foundations of Cognitive Science. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hart, W. (1991). Benacerraf’s dilemma. Crítica: Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía, 23(68):87–103.Google Scholar

Horn, L. (1972). On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators. PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Hurford, J. R. (1987). Language and Number: The Emergence of a Cognitive System. Basil Blackwell Oxford.Google Scholar

Hyde, D. C., Simon, C. E., Berteletti, I., and Mou, Y. (2017). The relationship between non-verbal systems of number and counting development: A neural signatures approach. Developmental Science, 20(6):e12464.Google Scholar

Kadosh, R. C. and Dowker, A. (2015). The Oxford Handbook of Numerical Cognition. Oxford Library of Psychology.Google Scholar

Kennedy, C. and Syrett, K. (2022). Numerals denote degree quantifiers: Evidence from child language. In Measurements, Numerals and Scales: Essays in Honour of Stephanie Solt, pages 135–162. Springer.Google Scholar

Kim, J. (1981). The role of perception in a priori knowledge: Some remarks. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 40(3):339–354.Google Scholar

Kratzer, A. and Heim, I. (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar, volume 1185. Blackwell Oxford.Google Scholar

Landman, F. (1989). Groups, i. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12(5):559–605.Google Scholar

Laurence, S. and Margolis, E. (2005). Number and natural. The Innate Mind: Structure and Contents, 1:216.Google Scholar

Laurence, S. and Margolis, E. (2007). Linguistic determinism and the innate basis of number. In The Innate Mind, pages 139–169.Google Scholar

Le Corre, M. and Carey, S. (2007). One, two, three, four, nothing more: An investigation of the conceptual sources of the verbal counting principles. Cognition, 105(2):395–438.Google Scholar

Lee, A. Y., Myers, J., and Rabin, G. O. (2022). The structure of analog representation. Noûs, 57(1):209–237.Google Scholar

Leslie, A. M., Gelman, R., and Gallistel, C. (2008). The generative basis of natural number concepts. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(6):213–218.Google Scholar

Leslie, A. M., Xu, F., Tremoulet, P. D., and Scholl, B. J. (1998). Indexing and the object concept: Developing “what” and “where” systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(1):10–18.Google Scholar

Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretic approach. In Bäuerle, R., Schwarze, C., and von Stechow, A., editors, Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, pages 303–323. de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Linnebo, Ø. (2009). The individuation of the natural numbers. In Bueno, O. and Linnebo, Ø. , editors, New Waves in Philosophy of Mathematics, pages 220–238. Palgrave-MacMillan.Google Scholar

Linnebo, Ø. (2017). Philosophy of Mathematics. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Linnebo, Ø. and Shapiro, S. (2017). Actual and potential infinity. Noûs, 53(1):160–191.Google Scholar

Macnamara, J. T. (1986). A border dispute: the place of logic in psychology. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Maddy, P. (1990). Realism in Mathematics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Maddy, P. (2018). Psychology and the a priori sciences. In Bangu, S., editor, Naturalizing Logico-Mathematical Knowledge, pages 15–29. Routledge.Google Scholar

Margolis, E. (2020). The small number system. Philosophy of Science, 87(1):113–134.Google Scholar

Margolis, E. and Laurence, S. (2008). How to learn the natural numbers: Inductive inference and the acquisition of number concepts. Cognition, 106(2):924–939.Google Scholar

Margolis, E. and Laurence, S. (2013). In defense of nativism. Philosophical Studies, 165(2):693–718.Google Scholar

Margolis, E. and Laurence, S. (2022). Concepts. In Zalta, E. N. and Nodelman, U., editors, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Fall 2022 edition.Google Scholar

Margolis, E. E. and Laurence, S. E. (1999). Concepts: Core Readings. The MIT Press.Google Scholar

McMurray, B. (2007). Defusing the childhood vocabulary explosion. Science, 317(5838):631–631.Google Scholar

McNally, L., de Swart, H., Aloni, M. et al. (2011). Inflection and derivation: How adjectives and nouns refer to abstract objects. In Proceedings of the 18th Amsterdam Colloquium, pages 425–434. ILLC.Google Scholar

Meck, W. H. and Church, R. M. (1983). A mode control model of counting and timing processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 9(3):320–356.Google Scholar

Mix, K. S. and Sandhofer, C. M. (2007). Do we need a number sense? In Roberts, M. J., editor, Integrating the Mind: Domain General vs Domain Specific Processes in Higher Cognition, pages 293–326. Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Moltmann, F. (2013). Reference to numbers in natural language. Philosophical Studies, 162:499–536.Google Scholar

O’Shaughnessy, D. M., Gibson, E., and Piantadosi, S. T. (2021). The cultural origins of symbolic number. Psychological Review, 129 (6):1442.Google Scholar PubMed

Partee, B. (1986). Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Groenendijk, J., de Jongh, D., and Stokhof, M., editors, Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers. Foris. pages 115–143.Google Scholar

Piaget, J. and Chomsky, N. (1980). Opening the debate: The psychogenesis of knowledge and its epistemological significance. In Piattelli-Palmarini, M., editor, Language and learning: The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky, pages 23–34. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar

Pinker, S. (2007). The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature. Penguin.Google Scholar

Ramsey, W. (2022). Implicit mental representation. In Bangu, S., (editor), The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy and Implicit Cognition. Routledge.Google Scholar

Ramsey, W. M. (2007). Representation Reconsidered. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Resnik, M. (1997). Mathematics as a Science of Patterns. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Rips, L. J., Bloomfield, A., and Asmuth, J. (2008). From numerical concepts to concepts of number. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31(6):623–642.Google Scholar

Russell, B. (1919). Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy. Dover.Google Scholar

Sanford, E. M. and Halberda, J. (2023). Successful discrimination of tiny numerical differences. Journal of Numerical Cognition, 9(1):196–205.Google Scholar

Sarnecka, B. W. and Carey, S. (2008). How counting represents number: What children must learn and when they learn it. Cognition, 108(3):662–674.Google Scholar

Schlimm, D. (2018). Numbers through numerals: The constitutive role of external representations. In Naturalizing Logico-Mathematical Knowledge, pages 195–217. Routledge.Google Scholar

Scholl, B. J. and Leslie, A. M. (1999). Explaining the infant’s object concept: Beyond the perception/cognition dichotomy. In Lepore, E., and Pylyshyn, Z., (editors), What Is Cognitive Science, pages 26–73. Blackwell.Google Scholar

Scontras, G. (2014). The Semantics of Measurement. PhD thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. (1982). The Chinese room revisited. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(2):345–348.Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. (1997). Philosophy of Mathematics: Structure and Ontology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. (2000). Thinking about Mathematics: The Philosophy of Mathematics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Shea, N. (2018). Representation in Cognitive Science. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Simon, T. J. (1997). Reconceptualizing the origins of number knowledge: A “non-numerical” account. Cognitive Development, 12(3):349–372.Google Scholar

Snyder, E. (2017). Numbers and cardinalities: What’s really wrong with the easy argument? Linguistics and Philosophy, 40:373–400.Google Scholar

Snyder, E. (2021a). Counting, measuring, and the fractional cardinalities puzzle. Linguistics and Philosophy, 44(3):513–550.Google Scholar

Snyder, E. (2021b). Semantics and the Ontology of Number. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Snyder, E., Samuels, R., and Shapiro, S. (2018a). Neologicism, Frege’s constraint, and the Frege-heck condition. Noûs, 54(1):54–77.Google Scholar

Snyder, E., Samuels, R., and Shapiro, S. (2022). Resolving Frege’s other puzzle. Philosophia Mathematica, 30(1):59–87.Google Scholar

Snyder, E., Samuels, R., and Shaprio, S. (2019). Hale’s argument from transitive counting. Synthese, 198(3):1905–1933.Google Scholar

Snyder, E. and Shapiro, S. (2022). Groups, sets, and paradox. Linguistics and Philosophy, 45(6):1277–1313.Google Scholar

Snyder, E., Shapiro, S., and Samuels, R. (2018b). Cardinals, ordinals, and the prospects for a Fregean foundation. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 82:77–107.Google Scholar

Spelke, E. S. (2000). Core knowledge. American Psychologist, 55(11):1233–1250.Google Scholar

Spelke, E. S. (2003). What makes us smart? Core knowledgeand natural language. In Gentner, D., and Goldin-Meadow, S., editors, Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought, pages 277–311. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Spelke, E. S. (2017). Core knowledge, language, and number. Language Learning and Development, 13(2):147–170.Google Scholar

Spelke, E. S. (2022). What Babies Know: Core Knowledge and Composition. Volume 1. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Strawson, P. F. (2002). Individuals. Routledge.Google Scholar

Tennant, N. (1997). The Taming of the True. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

vanMarle, K. (2018). What happens when a child learns to count? The development of the number concept. In Bangu, S., editor, Naturalizing Logico-Mathematical Knowledge: Approaches from Philosophy, Psychology and Cognitive Science, pages 131–147. Routledge.Google Scholar

Weir, A. (2022). Formalism in the philosophy of Mathematics. In Zalta, E. N., editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.Google Scholar

Wright, C. (2000). Neo-Fregean foundations for real analysis: Some reflections on Frege’s constraint. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 41:317–334.Google Scholar

Wynn, K. (1992). Children’s acquisition of the number words and the counting system. Cognitive Psychology, 24(2):220–251.Google Scholar

Wynn, K. (2018). Origins of numerical knowledge. In Bangu, S., editor, Naturalizing Logico-Mathematical Knowledge, pages 106–130. Routledge.Google Scholar

Yi, B.-u. (2018). Numerical cognition and mathematical knowledge: The plural property view. In Bangu, S., editor, Naturalizing Logico-Mathematical Knowledge, pages 52–88. Routledge.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this element is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.