Meanings Of Number Words Research Articles

Neural evidence of core foundations and conceptual change in preschool numeracy.

Symbolic numeracy first emerges as children learn the meanings of number words and how to use them to precisely count sets of objects. This development starts before children enter school and forms a foundation for lifelong mathematics achievement. Despite its importance, exactly how children acquire this basic knowledge is unclear. Here we test competing theories of early number learning by measuring event-related brain potentials during a novel number word-quantity comparison task in 3-4-year-old preschool children (N=128). We find several qualitative differences in neural processing of number by conceptual stage of development. Specifically, we find differences in early attention-related parietal electrophysiology (N1), suggesting that less conceptually advanced children process arrays as individual objects and more advanced children distribute attention over the entire set. Subsequently, we find that only more conceptually advanced children show later-going frontal (N2) sensitivity to the numerical-distance relationship between the number word and visual quantity. The nature of this response suggested thatexact rather than approximate numerical meanings were being associated with number words over frontal sites. No evidence of numerical distance effects was observed over posterior scalp sites. Together these results suggest that children may engage parallel individuation of objects to learn the meanings of the first few number words, but, ultimately, create new exact cardinal value representations for number words that cannot be defined in terms of core, nonverbal number systems. More broadly, these results document an interaction between attentional and general cognitive mechanisms in cognitive development. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: Conceptual development in numeracy is associated with a shift in attention from objects to sets. Children acquire meanings of the first few number words through associations with parallel attentional individuation of objects. Understanding of cardinality is associated with attentional processing of sets rather than individuals. Brain signatures suggest children attribute exact rather than approximate numerical meanings to the first few number words. Number-quantity relationship processing for the first few number words is evident in frontal but not parietal scalp electrophysiology of young children.

Acquiring the cardinal knowledge of number words: A conceptual replication

Understanding the way in which counting represent numerosities was shown to be a long-lasting process. As shown in the Give-a-number task, acquiring the meanings of verbal number words goes through successive developmental stages in which children first learn the cardinal meanings of small number words one at a time before generalizing the cardinal principle they have induced from the first three number words to all number words within their counting range. This acquisition would take about a year, and would be completed by the age of 3 ½ years. The aim of the present study was to provide a conceptual replication of the developmental sequence described in Wynn’s study nearly 30 years ago using the Give-a-number task. A first cross-sectional study was conducted on 213 Belgian children aged between 39 and 74 months using the Give-a-number task to examine the developmental pattern and the influence of age on this acquisition. The time span of acquisition was examined in a second study in which 34 children were tested five times every months between the age of 36 to 52 months. Results showed that acquiring the cardinal meanings of number words spread out over a protracted period, far more extended than assumed by Wynn. Furthermore, children do not generalize all-at-once to large number words, the cardinal knowledge they learned on small number words. Rather, number words were found to be learned one at a time in a really progressive manner. Results were discussed with regard to their implications for the existing theories and in relation with other tasks assessing the acquisition of verbal number symbols.

The emergence of children’s natural number concepts: Current theoretical challenges

AbstractLearning the meaning of number words is a lengthy and error‐prone process. In this review, we highlight outstanding issues related to current accounts of children’s acquisition of symbolic number knowledge. We maintain that, despite the ability to identify and label small numerical quantities, children do not understand initially that number words refer only to sets of discrete countable items, not to other nonnumerical dimensions. We question the presence of a sudden change in children’s understanding of cardinality, and we report the limits of the give‐a‐number task. We also highlight that children are still learning the directional property of the counting list, even after acquiring the cardinality principle. Finally, we discuss the role that the Approximate Number System may have in supporting the acquisition of symbolic numbers. We call for improvements in methodological tools and refinement in theoretical understanding of how children learn natural numbers.

Measuring Emerging Number Knowledge in Toddlers.

Recent evidence suggests that infants and toddlers may recognize counting as numerically relevant long before they are able to count or understand the cardinal meaning of number words. The Give-N task, which asks children to produce sets of objects in different quantities, is commonly used to test children’s cardinal number knowledge and understanding of exact number words but does not capture children’s preliminary understanding of number words and is difficult to administer remotely. Here, we asked whether toddlers correctly map number words to the referred quantities in a two-alternative forced choice Point-to-X task (e.g., “Which has three?”). Two- to three-year-old toddlers (N = 100) completed a Give-N task and a Point-to-X task through in-person testing or online via videoconferencing software. Across number-word trials in Point-to-X, toddlers pointed to the correct image more often than predicted by chance, indicating that they had some understanding of the prompted number word that allowed them to rule out incorrect responses, despite limited understanding of exact cardinal values. No differences in Point-to-X performance were seen for children tested in-person versus remotely. Children with better understanding of exact number words as indicated on the Give-N task also answered more trials correctly in Point-to-X. Critically, in-depth analyses of Point-to-X performance for children who were identified as 1- or 2-knowers on Give-N showed that 1-knowers do not show a preliminary understanding of numbers above their knower-level, whereas 2-knowers do. As researchers move to administering assessments remotely, the Point-to-X task promises to be an easy-to-administer alternative to Give-N for measuring children’s emerging number knowledge and capturing nuances in children’s number-word knowledge that Give-N may miss.

The cost of multiple representations: Learning number symbols with abstract and concrete representations.

Parents are frequently advised to use number books to help their children learn the meaning of number words and symbols. How should these resources be designed to best support learning? Previous research has shown that number books typically include multiple concrete representations of number. However, a large body of mathematics education research has demonstrated that there may be costs, as well as benefits, to using both multiple representations and concrete representations when learning mathematical concepts. Here we used an artificial symbol learning paradigm to explore whether the use of abstract (arrays of dots) or multiple concrete (changing arrays of pictures) numerical representations resulted in better learning of novel numerical symbols by children. Across 3 experiments, we found that children who learned the meaning of novel symbols by pairing them with numerosities represented by arrays of dots performed better on a subsequent symbolic comparison task than those who paired them with multiple concrete representations, or a mixture of abstract and multiple concrete representations. This advantage was not due to abstract representations being inherently superior to concrete representations, but instead to the use of multiple concrete representations. We conclude that the very common practice of using multiple concrete representations in children’s number books may not be the most effective to support children’s early number learning. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Infants recognize counting as numerically relevant

Children do not understand the meanings of count words like "two" and "three" until the preschool years. But even before knowing the meanings of these individual words, might they recognize that counting is "about" the dimension of number? Here in five experiments, we asked whether infants already associate counting with quantities. We measured 14- and 18-month olds' ability to remember different numbers of hidden objects that either were or were not counted by an experimenter before hiding. As in previous research, we found that infants failed to differentiate four hidden objects from two when the objects were not counted-suggesting an upper limit on the number of individual objects they could represent in working memory. However, infants succeeded when the objects were simply counted aloud before hiding. We found that counting also helped infants differentiate four hidden objects from six (a 2:3 ratio), but not three hidden objects from four (a 3:4 ratio), suggesting that counting helped infants represent the arrays' approximate cardinalities. Hence counting directs infants' attention to numerical aspects of the world, showing that they recognize counting as numerically relevant years before acquiring the meanings of number words.

Do children's number words begin noisy?

How do children acquire exact meanings for number words like three or forty-seven? In recent years, a lively debate has probed the cognitive systems that support learning, with some arguing that an evolutionarily ancient "approximate number system" drives early number word meanings, and others arguing that learning is supported chiefly by representations of small sets of discrete individuals. This debate has centered around the findings generated by Wynn's (, ) Give-a-Number task, which she used to categorize children into discrete "knower level" stages. Early reports confirmed Wynn's analysis, and took these stages to support the "small sets" hypothesis. However, more recent studies have disputed this analysis, and have argued that Give-a-Number data reveal a strong role for approximate number representations. In the present study, we use previously collected Give-a-Number data to replicate the analyses of these past studies, and to show that differences between past studies are due to assumptions made in analyses, rather than to differences in data themselves. We also show how Give-a-Number data violate the assumptions of parametric tests used in past studies. Based on simple non-parametric tests and model simulations, we conclude that (a) before children learn exact meanings for words like one, two, three, and four, they first acquire noisy preliminary meanings for these words, (b) there is no reliable evidence of preliminary meanings for larger meanings, and (c) Give-a-Number cannot be used to readily identify signatures of the approximate number system.

Meaning before order: Cardinal principle knowledge predicts improvement in understanding the successor principle and exact ordering

Learning the cardinal principle (the last word reached when counting a set represents the size of the whole set) is a major milestone in early mathematics. But researchers disagree about the relationship between cardinal principle knowledge and other concepts, including how counting implements the successor function (for each number word N representing a cardinal value, the next word in the count list represents the cardinal value N + 1) and exact ordering (cardinal values can be ordered such that each is one more than the value before it and one less than the value after it). No studies have investigated acquisition of the successor principle and exact ordering over time, and in relation to cardinal principle knowledge. An open question thus remains: Is the cardinal principle a “gatekeeper” concept children must acquire before learning about succession and exact ordering, or can these concepts develop separately? Preschoolers (N = 127) who knew the cardinal principle (CP-knowers) or who knew the cardinal meanings of number words up to “three” or “four” (3–4-knowers) completed succession and exact ordering tasks at pretest and posttest. In between, children completed one of two trainings: counting only versus counting, cardinal labeling, and comparison. CP-knowers started out better than 3–4-knowers on succession and exact ordering. Controlling for this disparity, we found that CP-knowers improved over time on succession and exact ordering; 3–4-knowers did not. Improvement did not differ between the two training conditions. We conclude that children can learn the cardinal principle without understanding succession or exact ordering and hypothesize that children must understand the cardinal principle before learning these concepts.

Do analog number representations underlie the meanings of young children’s verbal numerals?

Children learn to count, and even learn the cardinal meanings of the first three or four verbal numerals (“one” through “three” or “four”), before they master the numerical significance of counting. If so, it follows that the cardinal meanings of those first few numerals cannot be derived, initially, from their place in the count list and the counting routine. What non-verbal representations, then, support the cardinal meanings of verbal numerals before children have mastered how counting does so? Four experiments addressed the commonly adopted assumption that in the earliest period of learning the meanings of number words, children map verbal numerals to regions of the analog number system (ANS), a system of representation with numerical content that is widely attested in animals and in human infants. Experiment 1 confirmed that children who know what “three” means, but who do not yet know what “four” means, and do not yet know how counting represents number, can be easily taught the meaning of “four,” if they are trained to indicate sets of four when they are paired with a series of sets that contrast numerically with four. If children learn “four” by mapping the word to an ANS representation of sets of four, and if such ANS value-to-word mappings underlie the meanings of other known numerals early in development, then analogous teaching should enable young children to establish a ANS value-to-word mapping for between “ten” and sets of 10 as specified by the ANS. Furthermore, the ease of learning should be a function of the ratio of the number of individuals in the comparison set to 10. Three further experiments tested these hypotheses by attempting to teach young Cardinal Principle-knowers the meaning of the word “ten,” under the same training conditions “three-“knowers are easily taught the meaning of “four”. The children learned which picture in each training pair had “ten.” However, test trials with novel animals and spatial configurations showed that they had failed to learn what set sizes should be labeled “ten”, even when, after training, they were asked to indicate a set of 10 vs. a set of 20 or 30 (well within the ratio sensitivity of the ANS even early in infancy). Furthermore, there was no effect of ratio on success during test trials. These data provide new evidence that ANS value-to-word mappings do not underlie the meanings of number words early in development. We discuss what other non-verbal representations might do so, and discuss other ways the ANS may support learning how counting represents number.

Language, procedures, and the non-perceptual origin of number word meanings.

Perceptual representations of objects and approximate magnitudes are often invoked as building blocks that children combine to acquire the positive integers. Systems of numerical perception are either assumed to contain the logical foundations of arithmetic innately, or to supply the basis for their induction. I propose an alternative to this framework, and argue that the integers are not learned from perceptual systems, but arise to explain perception. Using cross-linguistic and developmental data, I show that small (~1-4) and large (~5+) numbers arise both historically and in individual children via distinct mechanisms, constituting independent learning problems, neither of which begins with perceptual building blocks. Children first learn small numbers using the same logic that supports other linguistic number marking (e.g. singular/plural). Years later, they infer the logic of counting from the relations between large number words and their roles in blind counting procedures, only incidentally associating number words with approximate magnitudes.

Non-symbolic approximate arithmetic training improves math performance in preschoolers

Math proficiency at early school age is an important predictor of later academic achievement. Thus, an important goal for society should be to improve math readiness in preschool-age children, especially in low-income children who typically arrive in kindergarten with less mathematical competency than their higher income peers. The majority of existing research-based math intervention programs target symbolic verbal number concepts in young children. However, very little attention has been paid to the preverbal intuitive ability to approximately represent numerical quantity, which is hypothesized to be an important foundation for full-fledged mathematical thinking. Here, we tested the hypothesis that repeated engagement of non-symbolic approximate addition and subtraction of large arrays of items results in improved math skills in very young children, an idea that stems from our previous studies in adults. In the current study, 3- to 5-year-olds showed selective improvements in math skills after multiple days of playing a tablet-based non-symbolic approximate arithmetic game compared with children who played a memory game. These findings, collectively with our previous reports, suggest that mental manipulation of approximate numerosities provides an important tool for improving math readiness, even in preschoolers who have yet to master the meaning of number words.

Does Grammatical Structure Accelerate Number Word Learning? Evidence from Learners of Dual and Non-Dual Dialects of Slovenian.

How does linguistic structure affect children’s acquisition of early number word meanings? Previous studies have tested this question by comparing how children learning languages with different grammatical representations of number learn the meanings of labels for small numbers, like 1, 2, and 3. For example, children who acquire a language with singular-plural marking, like English, are faster to learn the word for 1 than children learning a language that lacks the singular-plural distinction, perhaps because the word for 1 is always used in singular contexts, highlighting its meaning. These studies are problematic, however, because reported differences in number word learning may be due to unmeasured cross-cultural differences rather than specific linguistic differences. To address this problem, we investigated number word learning in four groups of children from a single culture who spoke different dialects of the same language that differed chiefly with respect to how they grammatically mark number. We found that learning a dialect which features “dual” morphology (marking of pairs) accelerated children’s acquisition of the number word two relative to learning a “non-dual” dialect of the same language.

Why is number word learning hard? Evidence from bilingual learners

Young children typically take between 18months and 2years to learn the meanings of number words. In the present study, we investigated this developmental trajectory in bilingual preschoolers to examine the relative contributions of two factors in number word learning: (1) the construction of numerical concepts, and (2) the mapping of language specific words onto these concepts. We found that children learn the meanings of small number words (i.e., one, two, and three) independently in each language, indicating that observed delays in learning these words are attributable to difficulties in mapping words to concepts. In contrast, children generally learned to accurately count larger sets (i.e., five or greater) simultaneously in their two languages, suggesting that the difficulty in learning to count is not tied to a specific language. We also replicated previous studies that found that children learn the counting procedure before they learn its logic – i.e., that for any natural number, n, the successor of n in the count list denotes the cardinality n+1. Consistent with past studies, we found that children’s knowledge of successors is first acquired incrementally. In bilinguals, we found that this knowledge exhibits item-specific transfer between languages, suggesting that the logic of the positive integers may not be stored in a language-specific format. We conclude that delays in learning the meanings of small number words are mainly due to language-specific processes of mapping words to concepts, whereas the logic and procedures of counting appear to be learned in a format that is independent of a particular language and thus transfers rapidly from one language to the other in development.

Grammatical morphology as a source of early number word meanings

How does cross-linguistic variation in linguistic structure affect children's acquisition of early number word meanings? We tested this question by investigating number word learning in two unrelated languages that feature a tripartite singular-dual-plural distinction: Slovenian and Saudi Arabic. We found that learning dual morphology affects children's acquisition of the number word two in both languages, relative to English. Children who knew the meaning of two were surprisingly frequent in the dual languages, relative to English. Furthermore, Slovenian children were faster to learn two than children learning English, despite being less-competent counters. Finally, in both Slovenian and Saudi Arabic, comprehension of the dual was correlated with knowledge of two and higher number words.

One first? Acquisition of the cardinal and ordinal uses of numbers in preschoolers

We studied the acquisition of the ordinal meaning of number words and examined its development relative to the acquisition of the cardinal meaning. Three groups of 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old children were tested in two tasks requiring the use of number words in both cardinal and ordinal contexts. Understanding of the counting principles was also measured by asking the children to assess the correctness of a cartoon character’s counting in both contexts. In general, the children performed cardinal tasks significantly better than ordinal ones. Tasks requiring the production of the number for a given quantity or position were solved more accurately than those testing the ability to select a set of n objects or the object in the nth position. Different profiles were obtained for the principles; those principles shared by the two contexts were mastered earlier in the cardinal context. Regarding order (ir)relevance, older children adhered to rigid ways of counting, producing better results in the ordinal context and incorrect rejections in the cardinal trials. Altogether, our data indicate that the acquisitions of cardinal and ordinal meanings of numbers are related, and cardinality precedes the development of ordinality.

How Can Syntax Support Number Word Acquisition?

We expand upon a previous proposal by Bloom and Wynn (1997) that young children learn about the meaning of number words by tracking their occurrence in particular syntactic environments, in combination with the discourse context in which they are used. An analysis of the Childes database (MacWhinney, 2000) reveals that the environments studied by Bloom and Wynn (specifically, the partitive frame x of the y) do not on their own distinguish between number terms and those terms that are more generally quantity denoting. A set of novel word-learning experiments reveals that children (and adults) are aware of the semantic constraints of two of the syntactic environments targeted by Bloom and Wynn (the partitive frame and modification by very) but either rely upon or benefit from contextual information supporting learning where a number word can but need not be used in a sentence. We propose that children most likely combine their knowledge of counting principles (Gelman & Gallistel, 1978) with the discourse context to support the conclusion that a number word can appear in certain syntactic frames. Overall, the results indicate that recruiting syntax-semantics knowledge and assigning a number-word meaning to a new word is a delicate affair, even for adults, and suggest that there is a tight link between surface-level form, underlying constraints, and the discourse context in number word learning.

Bootstrapping in a language of thought: A formal model of numerical concept learning

In acquiring number words, children exhibit a qualitative leap in which they transition from understanding a few number words, to possessing a rich system of interrelated numerical concepts. We present a computational framework for understanding this inductive leap as the consequence of statistical inference over a sufficiently powerful representational system. We provide an implemented model that is powerful enough to learn number word meanings and other related conceptual systems from naturalistic data. The model shows that bootstrapping can be made computationally and philosophically well-founded as a theory of number learning. Our approach demonstrates how learners may combine core cognitive operations to build sophisticated representations during the course of development, and how this process explains observed developmental patterns in number word learning.

Find the picture of eight turtles: A link between children’s counting and their knowledge of number word semantics

An essential part of understanding number words (e.g., eight) is understanding that all number words refer to the dimension of experience we call numerosity. Knowledge of this general principle may be separable from knowledge of individual number word meanings. That is, children may learn the meanings of at least a few individual number words before realizing that all number words refer to numerosity. Alternatively, knowledge of this general principle may form relatively early and proceed to guide and constrain the acquisition of individual number word meanings. The current article describes two experiments in which 116 children (2½- to 4-year-olds) were given a Word Extension task as well as a standard Give- N task. Results show that only children who understood the cardinality principle of counting successfully extended number words from one set to another based on numerosity—with evidence that a developing understanding of this concept emerges as children approach the cardinality principle induction. These findings support the view that children do not use a broad understanding of number words to initially connect number words to numerosity but rather make this connection around the time that they figure out the cardinality principle of counting.

What counts in the development of young children's number knowledge?

Prior studies indicate that children vary widely in their mathematical knowledge by the time they enter preschool and that this variation predicts levels of achievement in elementary school. In a longitudinal study of a diverse sample of 44 preschool children, we examined the extent to which their understanding of the cardinal meanings of the number words (e.g., knowing that the word "four" refers to sets with 4 items) is predicted by the "number talk" they hear from their primary caregiver in the early home environment. Results from 5 visits showed substantial variation in parents' number talk to children between the ages of 14 and 30 months. Moreover, this variation predicted children's knowledge of the cardinal meanings of number words at 46 months, even when socioeconomic status and other measures of parent and child talk were controlled. These findings suggest that encouraging parents to talk about number with their toddlers, and providing them with effective ways to do so, may positively impact children's school achievement.

Levels of number knowledge during early childhood

Researchers have long disagreed about whether number concepts are essentially continuous (unchanging) or discontinuous over development. Among those who take the discontinuity position, there is disagreement about how development proceeds. The current study addressed these questions with new quantitative analyses of children’s incorrect responses on the Give-N task. Using data from 280 children, ages 2 to 4 years, this study showed that most wrong answers were simply guesses, not counting or estimation errors. Their mean was unrelated to the target number, and they were lower-bounded by the numbers children actually knew. In addition, children learned the number-word meanings one at a time and in order; they treated the number words as mutually exclusive; and once they figured out the cardinal principle of counting, they generalized this principle to the rest of their count list. Findings support the ‘discontinuity’ account of number development in general and the ‘knower-levels’ account in particular.