Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-tq7bh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-16T03:34:54.137Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The case for continuity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2011

Rochel Gelman
Rochel Gelman
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology and Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854-8020. rgelman@ruccs.rutgers.edu ruccs.rutgers.edu/faculty/GnG/gelman.html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article defends a continuity position. Infants can abstract numerosity and young preschool children do respond appropriately to tasks that tap their ability to use a count and cardinal value and/or arithmetic principles. Active use of a nonverbal domain of arithmetic serves to enable the child to find relevant data to build knowledge about the language and use rules of numerosity and quantity.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , June 2011 , pp. 127 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bullock, M. & Gelman, R. (1977) Numerical reasoning in young children: The ordering principle. Child Development 48:427–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, S. (2009) The origin of concepts. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cordes, S. & Brannon, E.M. (2009) Crossing the divide: Infants discriminate small from large numbers. Developmental Psychology 45:1583–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cordes, S., Gelman, R., Gallistel, C. R. & Whalen, J. (2001) Variability signatures distinguish verbal from non-verbal counting – even in the small number range. Psychonomics Bulletin and Review 8(4):698–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, R. (1993) A rational-constructivist account of early learning about numbers and objects. In: The psychology of learning and motivation, vol. 30, ed. Medin, D., pp. 61–96. Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, R. (2006) The young child as natural-number arithmetician. Current Directions in Psychological Science 15:193–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurewitz, F., Papafragou, , Gleitman, L. R. & Gelman, R. (2006) Asymmetries in the acquisition of numbers and quantifiers. Language learning and development 2:77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Corre, M. & Carey, S. (2007) One, two, three, four, nothing more: An investigation of the conceptual sources of the counting principles. Cognition 105:395–438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Syrett, K., Musolino, J. & Gelman, R. (in press) Can children use syntax to learn about number word meaning. Language, learning and development Google Scholar
VanMarle, K. & Wynn, K. (in press) Tacking and quantifying objects and non-cohesive substances. Developmental Science.Google Scholar
Wynn, K. (1990) Children's understanding of counting. Cognition 36:155–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wynn, K. (1992) Children's acquisition of the number words and the counting system. Cognitive Psychology 24:220–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zur, O. & Gelman, R. (2004) Doing arithmetic in preschool by predicting and checking. Early Childhood Quarterly Review 19:121–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar