Representation of the cardinality principle: early conception of error in a counterfactual test

Freeman, Norman H; Antonucci, Cristina; Lewis, C. S.

doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00064-5

Cited by 59 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Their performance is inconsistent and often influenced by factors other than cardinality. For small set sizes (e.g., less then 10), most children have a good grasp of cardinal value by 5 years (Bermejo, 1996;Freeman, Antonucci, & Lewis, 2000), but generalization to larger sets and a consistent focus on cardinality information over other information (e.g., perceptual cues) may not emerge for several more years (Piaget, 1965).…”

Section: Cardinality and Ordinalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of Mathematical Understanding

Geary¹

2007

Handbook of Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Cardinality and Ordinalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of Mathematical Understanding

Geary¹

2007

Handbook of Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, opinions differ sharply over the exact role that these principles play in explaining how children learn the meaning of number words. As Freeman, Antonucci, and Lewis (2000) remark "There is universal agreement that Gelman and Gallistel (1978) defined the principles governing the domain …, but there is great controversy over the role of principles in explaining development …" (p. 72). The controversy revolves around the question of whether the counting principles identified by 1 As do quantificational determiners more generally.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The semantics and acquisition of number words: integrating linguistic and developmental perspectives

Musolino

2004

Cognition

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article brings together two independent lines of research on numerally quantified expressions, e.g. two girls. One stems from work in linguistic theory and asks what truth conditional contributions such expressions make to the utterances in which they are used -in other words, what do numerals mean? The other comes from the study of language development and asks when and how children learn the meaning of such expressions. My goal is to show that when integrated, these two perspectives can both constrain and enrich each other in ways hitherto not considered. Specifically, work in linguistic theory suggests that in addition to their 'exactly n' interpretation, numerally quantified NPs such as two hoops can also receive an 'at least n' and an 'at most n' interpretation, e.g. you need to put two hoops on the pole to win (i.e. at least two hoops) and you can miss two shots and still win (i.e. at most two shots). I demonstrate here through the results of three sets of experiments that by the age of 5 children have implicit knowledge of the fact that expressions like two N can be interpreted as 'at least two N' and 'at most two N' while they do not yet know the meaning of corresponding expressions such as at least/most two N which convey these senses explicitly. I show that these results have important implications for theories of the semantics of numerals and that they raise new questions for developmental accounts of the number vocabulary. q

show abstract

“…Gelman (1993) cited by Le Corre et al (2006) noted that students with disability may do not better if cardinal value is explicitly mentioned. Freeman et al (2000) claimed that children generally could simply have the same performance on the cardinality principle. Butterworth (2007) found that some of these students might not reach mastery of the three essential features at the same time.…”

Section: Counting Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examine Counting Procedure among Students with Mild Intellectual Disability: A Case of Penang Malaysia

Taibat¹,

Ahmad²,

Ghazali³

2013

IES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates counting procedure in number counting based on gender among students with mild intellectual disability. Quantitative approach was used for testing counting procedure in number counting among these students. The samples for the study comprise fifteen male and fifteen female students with intellectual disability. Descriptive statistics and T-test were used in analyzing the data. It was revealed from the result of the study that students with mild intellectual disability showed understanding of counting procedure in number counting. However, the results of the study showed that these students have difficulty in number counting using abstraction principle and order irrelevance principle. It was shown that there was no significant difference between males and females in number counting when applying counting procedure.

show abstract

Representation of the cardinality principle: early conception of error in a counterfactual test

Cited by 59 publications

References 35 publications

Development of Mathematical Understanding

Development of Mathematical Understanding

The semantics and acquisition of number words: integrating linguistic and developmental perspectives

Examine Counting Procedure among Students with Mild Intellectual Disability: A Case of Penang Malaysia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About