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

Creating ad hoc graphical representations of number

The ability to communicate about exact number is critical to many modern human practices spanning science, industry, and politics. Although some early numeral systems used 1-to-1 correspondence (e.g., 'IIII' to represent 4), most systems provide compact representations via more arbitrary conventions (e.g., '7' and 'VII'). When people are unable to rely on conventional numerals, however, what strategies do they initially use to communicate number? Across three experiments, participants used pictures to communicate about visual arrays of objects containing 1-16 items, either by producing freehand drawings or combining sets of visual tokens. We analyzed how the pictures they produced varied as a function of communicative need (Experiment 1), spatial regularities in the arrays (Experiment 2), and visual properties of tokens (Experiment 3). In Experiment 1, we found that participants often expressed number in the form of 1-to-1 representations, but sometimes also exploited the configuration of sets. In Experiment 2, this strategy of using configural cues was exaggerated when sets were especially large, and when the cues were predictably correlated with number. Finally, in Experiment 3, participants readily adopted salient numerical features of objects (e.g., four-leaf clover) and generally combined them in a cumulative-additive manner. Taken together, these findings corroborate historical evidence that humans exploit correlates of number in the external environment - such as shape, configural cues, or 1-to-1 correspondence - as the basis for innovating more abstract number representations.

Recognition of small numbers in subset knowers Cardinal knowledge in early childhood

Previous research suggests that subset-knowers have an approximate understanding of small numbers. However, it is still unclear exactly what subset-knowers understand about small numbers. To investigate this further, we tested 133 participants, ages 2.6-4 years, on a newly developed eye-tracking task targeting cardinal recognition. Participants were presented with two sets differing in cardinality (1-4 items) and asked to find a specific cardinality. Our main finding showed that on a group level, subset-knowers could identify all presented targets at rates above chance, further supporting that subset-knowers understand several of the basic principles of small numbers. Exploratory analyses tentatively suggest that 1-knowers could identify the targets 1 and 2, but struggled when the target was 3 and 4, whereas 2-knowers and above could identify all targets at rates above chance. This might tentatively suggest that subset-knowers have an approximate understanding of numbers that is just (i.e. +1) above their current knower level. We discuss the implications of these results at length.

Characterizing exact arithmetic abilities before formal schooling

Children appear to have some arithmetic abilities before formal instruction in school, but the extent of these abilities as well as the mechanisms underlying them are poorly understood. Over two studies, an initial exploratory study of preschool children in the U.S. (N = 207; Age = 2.89-4.30 years) and a pre-registered replication of preschool children in Italy (N = 130; Age = 3-6.33 years), we documented some basic behavioral signatures of exact arithmetic using a non-symbolic subtraction task. Furthermore, we investigated the underlying mechanisms by analyzing the relationship between individual differences in exact subtraction and assessments of other numerical and non-numerical abilities. Across both studies, children performed above chance on the exact non-symbolic arithmetic task, generally showing better performance on problems involving smaller quantities compared to those involving larger quantities. Furthermore, individual differences in non-verbal approximate numerical abilities and exact cardinal number knowledge were related to different aspects of subtraction performance. Specifically, non-verbal approximate numerical abilities were related to subtraction performance in older but not younger children. Across both studies we found evidence that cardinal number knowledge was related to performance on subtraction problems where the answer was zero (i.e., subtractive negation problems). Moreover, subtractive negation problems were only solved above chance by children who had a basic understanding of cardinality. Together these finding suggest that core non-verbal numerical abilities, as well as emerging knowledge of symbolic numbers provide a basis for some, albeit limited, exact arithmetic abilities before formal schooling.

Verbal counting and the timing of number acquisition in an indigenous Amazonian group

Children in industrialized cultures typically succeed on Give-N, a test of counting ability, by age 4. On the other hand, counting appears to be learned much later in the Tsimane’, an indigenous group in the Bolivian Amazon. This study tests three hypotheses for what may cause this difference in timing: (a) Tsimane’ children may be shy in providing behavioral responses to number tasks, (b) Tsimane’ children may not memorize the verbal list of number words early in acquisition, and/or (c) home environments may not support mathematical learning in the same way as in US samples, leading Tsimane’ children to primarily acquire mathematics through formalized schooling. Our results suggest that most of our subjects are not inhibited by shyness in responding to experimental tasks. We also find that Tsimane’ children (N = 100, ages 4-11) learn the verbal list later than US children, but even upon acquiring this list, still take time to pass Give-N tasks. We find that performance in counting varies across tasks and is related to formal schooling. These results highlight the importance of formal education, including instruction in the count list, in learning the meanings of the number words.

Environmental influences on mathematics performance in early childhood

Math skills relate to lifelong career, health, and financial outcomes. Individuals' own cognitive abilities predict math performance and there is growing recognition that environmental influences including differences in culture and variability in math engagement also impact math skills. In this Review, we summarize evidence indicating that differences between languages, exposure to math-focused language, socioeconomic status, attitudes and beliefs about math, and engagement with math activities influence young children's math performance. These influences play out at the community and individual level. However, research on the role of these environmental influences for foundational number skills, including understanding of number words, is limited. Future research is needed to understand individual differences in the development of early emerging math skills such as number word skills, examining to what extent different types of environmental input are necessary and how children's cognitive abilities shape the impact of environmental input.

The Effects of Language Instruction on Math Development

How does language shape mathematical development? In this article, we consider this question by reviewing findings from cross-sectional and longitudinal research. In this literature, we find that differences in the structures of languages and individual variation in language ability are associated with mathematical performance in both obvious and unexpected ways. We then consider the causal nature of these relations, with a focus on experimental studies that have tested the effects of language instruction on mathematical outcomes. Findings from this work show that certain forms of language instruction meaningfully improve performance in several mathematical domains, providing strong evidence of a linguistic pathway in mathematical development. However, much additional research is needed to understand how language instruction may be integrated optimally into math education. We conclude with recommendations for research.

Children's attention to numerical quantities relates to verbal number knowledge: An introduction to the Build-A-Train task

Which dimension of a set of objects is more salient to young children: number or size? The 'Build-A-Train' task was developed and used to examine whether children spontaneously use a number or physical size approach on an un-cued matching task. In the Build-A-Train task, an experimenter assembles a train using one to five blocks of a particular length and asks the child to build the same train. The child's blocks differ in length from the experimenter's blocks, causing the child to build a train that matches based on either the number of blocks or length of the train, as it is not possible to match on both. One hundred and nineteen children between 2 years 2 months and 6 years 0 months of age (M = 4.05, SD = 0.84) completed the Build-A-Train task, and the Give-a-Number task, a classic task used to assess children's conceptual knowledge of verbal number words. Across train lengths and verbal number knowledge levels, children used a number approach more than a size approach on the Build-A-Train task. However, children were especially likely to use a number approach over a size approach when they knew the verbal number word that corresponded to the quantity of blocks in the train, particularly for quantities smaller than four. Therefore, children's attention to number relates to their knowledge of verbal number words. The Build-A-Train task and findings from the current study set a foundation for future longitudinal research to investigate the causal relationship between children's acquisition of symbolic mathematical concepts and attention to number.

Predicting children's emerging understanding of numbers

How do children construct a concept of natural numbers? Past research addressing this question has mainly focused on understanding how children come to acquire the cardinality principle. However, at that point children already understand the first number words and have a rudimentary natural number concept in place. The question therefore remains; what gets children's number learning off the ground? We therefore, based on previous empirical and theoretical work, tested which factors predict the first stages of children's natural number understanding. We assessed if children's expressive vocabulary, visuospatial working memory, and ANS (Approximate number system) acuity at 18 months of age could predict their natural number knowledge at 2.5 years of age. We found that early expressive vocabulary and visuospatial working memory were important for later number knowledge. The results of the current study add to a growing body of literature showing the importance of language in children's learning about numbers.

Counting and the ontogenetic origins of exact equality

Humans are unique in their capacity to both represent number exactly and to express these representations symbolically. This correlation has prompted debate regarding whether symbolic number systems are necessary to represent large exact number. Previous work addressing this question in innumerate adults and semi-numerate children has been limited by conflicting results and differing methodologies, and has not yielded a clear answer. We address this debate by adapting methods used with innumerate populations (a "set-matching" task) for 3- to 5-year-old US children at varying stages of symbolic number acquisition. In five studies we find that children's ability to match sets exactly is related not simply to knowing the meanings of a few number words, but also to understanding how counting is used to generate sets (i.e., the cardinal principle). However, while children were more likely to match sets after acquiring the cardinal principle, they nevertheless demonstrated failures, compatible with the hypothesis that the ability to reason about exact equality emerges sometime later. These findings provide important data on the origin of exact number concepts, and point to knowledge of a counting system, rather than number language in general, as a key ingredient in the ability to reason about large exact number.

Testing the role of symbols in preschool numeracy: An experimental computer-based intervention study

Numeracy is of critical importance for scholastic success and modern-day living, but the precise mechanisms that drive its development are poorly understood. Here we used novel experimental training methods to begin to investigate the role of symbols in the development of numeracy in preschool-aged children. We assigned pre-school children in the U.S. and Italy (N = 215; Mean age = 49.15 months) to play one of five versions of a computer-based numerical comparison game for two weeks. The different versions of the game were equated on basic features of gameplay and demands but systematically varied in numerical content. Critically, some versions included non-symbolic numerical comparisons only, while others combined non-symbolic numerical comparison with symbolic aids of various types. Before and after training we assessed four components of early numeracy: counting proficiency, non-symbolic numerical comparison, one-to-one correspondence, and arithmetic set transformation. We found that overall children showed improvement in most of these components after completing these short trainings. However, children trained on numerical comparisons with symbolic aids made larger gains on assessments of one-to-one correspondence and arithmetic transformation compared to children whose training involved non-symbolic numerical comparison only. Further exploratory analyses suggested that, although there were no major differences between children trained with verbal symbols (e.g., verbal counting) and non-verbal visuo-spatial symbols (i.e., abacus counting), the gains in one-to-one correspondence may have been driven by abacus training, while the gains in non-verbal arithmetic transformations may have been driven by verbal training. These results provide initial evidence that the introduction of symbols may contribute to the emergence of numeracy by enhancing the capacity for thinking about exact equality and the numerical effects of set transformations. More broadly, this study provides an empirical basis to motivate further focused study of the processes by which children’s mastery of symbols influences children’s developing mastery of numeracy.

First-person dimensions of mental agency in visual counting of moving objects

Counting objects, especially moving ones, is an important capacity that has been intensively explored in experimental psychology and related disciplines. The common approach is to trace the three counting principles (estimating, subitizing, serial counting) back to functional constructs like the Approximate Number System and the Object Tracking System. While usually attempts are made to explain these competing models by computational processes at the neural level, their first-person dimensions have been hardly investigated so far. However, explanatory gaps in both psychological and philosophical terms may suggest a methodologically complementary approach that systematically incorporates introspective data. For example, the mental-action debate raises the question of whether mental activity plays only a marginal role in otherwise automatic cognitive processes or if it can be developed in such a way that it can count as genuine mental action. To address this question not only theoretically, we conducted an exploratory study with a moving-dots task and analyze the self-report data qualitatively and quantitatively on different levels. Building on this, a multi-layered, consciousness-immanent model of counting is presented, which integrates the various counting principles and concretizes mental agency as developing from pre-reflective to increasingly conscious mental activity.

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.

Tapping into the interplay of lexical and number knowledge using fast mapping: A longitudinal eye-tracking study with two-year-olds

Language skills and mathematical competencies are argued to influence each other during development. While a relation between the development of vocabulary size and mathematical skills is already documented in the literature, this study further examines how children's ability to map a novel word to an unknown object as well as their ability to retain this word from memory may be related to their knowledge of number words. Twenty-five children were tested longitudinally (at 30 and at 36 months of age) using an eye-tracking-based fast mapping task, the Give-a-Number task, and standardized measures of vocabulary. The results reveal that children's ability to create and retain a mental representation of a novel word was related to number knowledge at 30 months, but not at 36 months while vocabulary size correlated with number knowledge only at 36 months. These results show that even specific mapping processes are initially related to the acquisition of number words and they speak for a parallelism between the development of lexical and number-concept knowledge despite their semantic and syntactic differences.

What Counts? Sources of Knowledge in Children's Acquisition of the Successor Function

Although many U.S. children can count sets by 4 years, it is not until 5½-6 years that they understand how counting relates to number-that is, that adding 1 to a set necessitates counting up one number. This study examined two knowledge sources that 3½- to 6-year-olds (N = 136) may leverage to acquire this "successor function": (a) mastery of productive rules governing count list generation; and (b) training with "+1" math facts. Both productive counting and "+1" math facts were related to understanding that adding 1 to sets entails counting up one number in the count list; however, even children with robust successor knowledge struggled with its arithmetic expression, suggesting they do not generalize the successor function from "+1" math facts.

Counting to Infinity: Does Learning the Syntax of the Count List Predict Knowledge That Numbers Are Infinite?

By around the age of 5½, many children in the United States judge that numbers never end, and that it is always possible to add 1 to a set. These same children also generally perform well when asked to label the quantity of a set after one object is added (e.g., judging that a set labeled "five" should now be "six"). These findings suggest that children have implicit knowledge of the "successor function": Every natural number, n, has a successor, n + 1. Here, we explored how children discover this recursive function, and whether it might be related to discovering productive morphological rules that govern language-specific counting routines (e.g., the rules in English that represent base-10 structure). We tested 4- and 5-year-old children's knowledge of counting with three tasks, which we then related to (a) children's belief that 1 can always be added to any number (the successor function) and (b) their belief that numbers never end (infinity). Children who exhibited knowledge of a productive counting rule were significantly more likely to believe that numbers are infinite (i.e., there is no largest number), though such counting knowledge was not directly linked to knowledge of the successor function, per se. Also, our findings suggest that children as young as 4 years of age are able to implement rules defined over their verbal count list to generate number words beyond their spontaneous counting range, an insight which may support reasoning over their acquired verbal count sequence to infer that numbers never end.

Is thirty-two three tens and two ones? The embedded structure of cardinal numbers

The acquisition and representation of natural numbers have been a central topic in cognitive science. However, a key question in this topic about how humans acquire the capacity to understand that numbers make 'infinite use of finite means' (or that numbers are generative) has been left unanswered. While previous theories rely on the idea of the successor principle, we propose an alternative hypothesis that children's understanding of the syntactic rules for building complex numerals-or numerical syntax-is a crucial foundation for the acquisition of number concepts. In two independent studies, we assessed children's understanding of numerical syntax by probing their knowledge about the embedded structure of cardinal numbers using a novel task called Give-a-number Base-10 (Give-N10). In Give-N10, children were asked to give a large number of items (e.g., 32 items) from a pool that is organized in sets of ten items. Children's knowledge about the embedded structure of numbers (e.g., knowing that thirty-two items are composed of three tens and two ones) was assessed from their ability to use those sets. Study 1 tested English-speaking 4- to 10-year-olds and revealed that children's understanding of the embedded structure of numbers emerges relatively late in development (several months into kindergarten), beyond when they are capable of making a semantic induction over a local sequence of numbers. Moreover, performance in Give-N10 was predicted by other task measures that assessed children's knowledge about the syntactic rules that govern numerals (such as counting fluency), demonstrating the validity of the measure. In Study 2, this association was tested again in monolingual Korean kindergarteners (5-6 years), as we aimed to test the same effect in a language with a highly regular numeral system. It replicated the association between Give-N10 performance and counting fluency, and it also demonstrated that Korean-speaking children understand the embedded structure of cardinal numbers earlier in the acquisition path than English-speaking peers, suggesting that regularity in numerical syntax facilitates the acquisition of generative properties of numbers. Based on these observations and our theoretical analysis of the literature, we propose that the syntax for building complex numerals, not the successor principle, represents a structural platform for numerical thinking in young children.

Noise, Economy, and the Emergence of Information Structure in a Laboratory Language

The acceptability of sentences in natural language is constrained not only grammaticality, but also by the relationship between what is being conveyed and such factors as context and the beliefs of interlocutors. In many languages the critical element in a sentence (its focus) must be given grammatical prominence. There are different accounts of the nature of focus marking. Some researchers treat it as the grammatical realization of a potentially arbitrary feature of universal grammar and do not provide an explicit account of its origins; others have argued, however, that focus marking is a (grammaticalized) functional solution to the problem of efficiently transmitting information via a noisy channel. By adding redundancy to highlight critical elements in particular, focus protects key parts of the message from noise. If this information-theoretic account is true, then we should expect focus-like behavior to emerge even in non-linguistic communication systems given sufficient noise and pressures for efficiency. We tested this in an experiment in which participants played a simple communication game in which they had to click cells on a grid to communicate one of two line figures drawn across the grid. We manipulated the noise, available time, and required effort, and measured patterns of redundancy. Because the lines in many cases overlapped, meaning that only some parts of each line could be used to distinguish it from the other, we were able to compare the extent to which effort was expended on adding redundancy to critical (non-overlapping) and non-critical (overlapping) parts of the message. The results supported the information-theoretic account of focus and shed light on the emergence of information structure in language.

Do children use language structure to discover the recursive rules of counting?

We test the hypothesis that children acquire knowledge of the successor function - a foundational principle stating that every natural number n has a successor n + 1 - by learning the productive linguistic rules that govern verbal counting. Previous studies report that speakers of languages with less complex count list morphology have greater counting and mathematical knowledge at earlier ages in comparison to speakers of more complex languages (e.g., Miller & Stigler, 1987). Here, we tested whether differences in count list transparency affected children's acquisition of the successor function in three languages with relatively transparent count lists (Cantonese, Slovenian, and English) and two languages with relatively opaque count lists (Hindi and Gujarati). We measured 3.5- to 6.5-year-old children's mastery of their count list's recursive structure with two tasks assessing productive counting, which we then related to a measure of successor function knowledge. While the more opaque languages were associated with lower counting proficiency and successor function task performance in comparison to the more transparent languages, a unique within-language analytic approach revealed a robust relationship between measures of productive counting and successor knowledge in almost every language. We conclude that learning productive rules of counting is a critical step in acquiring knowledge of recursive successor function across languages, and that the timeline for this learning varies as a function of count list transparency.

Ontogenetic Origins of Human Integer Representations

Do children learn number words by associating them with perceptual magnitudes? Recent studies argue that approximate numerical magnitudes play a foundational role in the development of integer concepts. Against this, we argue that approximate number representations fail both empirically and in principle to provide the content required of integer concepts. Instead, we suggest that children's understanding of integer concepts proceeds in two phases. In the first phase, children learn small exact number word meanings by associating words with small sets. In the second phase, children learn the meanings of larger number words by mastering the logic of exact counting algorithms, which implement the successor function and Hume's principle (that one-to-one correspondence guarantees exact equality). In neither phase do approximate number representations play a foundational role.

Contrast and entailment: Abstract logical relations constrain how 2- and 3-year-old children interpret unknown numbers

Do children understand how different numbers are related before they associate them with specific cardinalities? We explored how children rely on two abstract relations - contrast and entailment - to reason about the meanings of 'unknown' number words. Previous studies argue that, because children give variable amounts when asked to give an unknown number, all unknown numbers begin with an existential meaning akin to some. In Experiment 1, we tested an alternative hypothesis, that because numbers belong to a scale of contrasting alternatives, children assign them a meaning distinct from some. In the "Don't Give-a-Number task", children were shown three kinds of fruit (apples, bananas, strawberries), and asked to not give either some or a number of one kind (e.g. Give everything, but not [some/five] bananas). While children tended to give zero bananas when asked to not give some, they gave positive amounts when asked to not give numbers. This suggests that contrast - plus knowledge of a number's membership in a count list - enables children to differentiate the meanings of unknown number words from the meaning of some. Experiment 2 tested whether children's interpretation of unknown numbers is further constrained by understanding numerical entailment relations - that if someone, e.g. has three, they thereby also have two, but if they do not have three, they also do not have four. On critical trials, children saw two characters with different quantities of fish, two apart (e.g. 2 vs. 4), and were asked about the number in-between - who either has or doesn't have, e.g. three. Children picked the larger quantity for the affirmative, and the smaller for the negative prompts even when all the numbers were unknown, suggesting that they understood that, whatever three means, a larger quantity is more likely to contain that many, and a smaller quantity is more likely not to. We conclude by discussing how contrast and entailment could help children scaffold the exact meanings of unknown 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.

What counts in preschool number knowledge? A Bayes factor analytic approach toward theoretical model development

Preschool children vary tremendously in their numerical knowledge, and these individual differences strongly predict later mathematics achievement. To better understand the sources of these individual differences, we measured a variety of cognitive and linguistic abilities motivated by previous literature to be important and then analyzed which combination of these variables best explained individual differences in actual number knowledge. Through various data-driven Bayesian model comparison and selection strategies on competing multiple regression models, our analyses identified five variables of unique importance to explaining individual differences in preschool children's symbolic number knowledge: knowledge of the count list, nonverbal approximate numerical ability, working memory, executive conflict processing, and knowledge of letters and words. Furthermore, our analyses revealed that knowledge of the count list, likely a proxy for explicit practice or experience with numbers, and nonverbal approximate numerical ability were much more important to explaining individual differences in number knowledge than general cognitive and language abilities. These findings suggest that children use a diverse set of number-specific, general cognitive, and language abilities to learn about symbolic numbers, but the contribution of number-specific abilities may overshadow that of more general cognitive abilities in the learning process.

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.

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.