Abstract
In the literature on enculturation—the thesis according to which higher cognitive capacities result from transformations in the brain driven by culture—numerical cognition is often cited as an example. A consequence of the enculturation account for numerical cognition is that individuals cannot acquire numerical competence if a symbolic system for numbers is not available in their cultural environment. This poses a problem for the explanation of the historical origins of numerical concepts and symbols. When a numeral system had not been created yet, people did not have the opportunity to acquire number concepts. But, if people did not have number concepts, how could they ever create a symbolic system for numbers? Here I propose an account of the invention of symbolic systems for numbers by anumeric people in the remote past that is compatible with the enculturation thesis. I suggest that symbols for numbers and number concepts may have emerged at the same time through the re-semantification of words whose meanings were originally non-numerical.
Highlights
According to the enculturation thesis, higher cognitive capacities, such as reading, writing, and calculating, result from transformations in the brain driven by cultural practices (Menary 2015; Fabry 2018)
The importance of enculturation to mathematical cognition is suggested by findings and theories in the field of numerical cognition according to which culturally created symbols for numbers—number words and digits—play an indispensable role in the transition from our genetically evolved capacities to deal with discrete quantities, which are imprecise for collections of more than three or four items, to true numerical competence, which is precise no matter the size of the involved collections (for reviews of the main findings and theories in the field of numerical cognition, see Dehaene (2011), Gilmore et al (2018), Nieder (2019), Knops (2020); for an account of how these findings and theories fit the enculturation framework, see Pantsar (2019))
How could anyone have ever invented a counting system for the first time without knowing that there is a difference between, say, ten and eleven? “[H]ow ... can we rely on external symbols for numbers in our explanation of the development of numerical content when the existence of such symbols in turn depends on the existence of number concepts?” (Pelland 2018b, p. 185)
Summary
According to the enculturation thesis, higher cognitive capacities, such as reading, writing, and calculating, result from transformations in the brain driven by cultural practices (Menary 2015; Fabry 2018). The enculturation thesis and, more generally, accounts of numerical cognition in which culturally created symbolic systems for numbers play an indispensable role in the acquisition of numerical competence, have been criticized by Pelland (2018a, b, 2020) He observes that, if the availability of symbols for numbers and numerical practices in the cultural environment where individuals are raised were a precondition for the emergence of numerical competence in individuals, the very creation of symbols for numbers for the first time would become a mystery. For Pelland, the existence of people in the remote past who were able to develop numerical content from scratch should count as counterevidence against the claim that the availability of symbols for numbers and numerical practices in the cultural environment where individuals are raised is a precondition for individuals to acquire proper numerical competence. I present data from cognitive and linguistic studies with anumeric and few-number cultures to support the suggested hypotheses
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
