Abstract
It may come as something of a surprise to find a mathematician (albeit in the guise of a mathematics educator) writing about vagueness, since it is commonly supposed that precision is the hallmark of mathematics. Such a point of view is reflected in the landmark 1982 Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Teaching of Mathematics in Schools (the Cockcroft Report), which asserted that, ‘mathematics provides a means of communication which is powerful, concise and unambiguous’ (Department of Education and Science 1982, p. 1), and proposed the communicative power of mathematics as a ‘principal reason’ for teaching it. There was refreshing novelty in such a claim, which seemed to be justifying the place of mathematics in the curriculum in much the same way that one might justify the learning of a foreign language, and it did much to promote and sustain interest in the place of language in the teaching and learning of mathematics. Such a view of mathematics is in contrast, however, with that expressed in a contemporary pamphlet issued by the Association of Teachers of Mathematics (ATM 1980, pp. 17–18), whose authors argued that:
Because it is a tolerant medium, everyday language is necessarily ambiguous. /…/ Now, mathematising is also a form of action in the world. And its expressions, however carefully defined, have to retain a fundamental tolerance /…/ Because it is a tolerant medium, mathematics is also necessarily an ambiguous one.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
ATM, Language and Mathematics (Nelson: Association of Teachers of Mathematics, 1980).
D. Brockway, ‘Semantic Constraints on Relevance’, in H. Parrett, M. Sbisa and J. Verschueren (eds), Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics: Proceedings of the Conference on Pragmatics at Urbino, July 8–14, 1979 (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1981) 57–78.
G. Brown and G. Yule, Discourse Analysis (Cambridge University Press, 1983).
P. Brown and S. Levinson, Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (Cambridge University Press, 1987).
J. Channell, Vague Language (Oxford University Press, 1994).
Department of Education and Science, Mathematics Counts (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1982).
H. P. Ginsburg, Entering the Child’s Mind: The Clinical Interview in Psychological Research and Practice (Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
J.A. Goguen, ‘The Logic of Inexact Concepts’, Synthese, 19 (1969) 325–73.
H. P. Grice, ‘Logic and Conversation’, in P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts 3 (New York: Academic Press, 1975), 41–58.
K.M. Jaszczolt, The Pragmatics of Propositional Attitude Reports (Oxford: Elsevier Science, 2000).
G. Lakoff, ‘Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts’, Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 8 (1972) 183–228.
J. Piaget, The Child’s Conception of the World. (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1929).
C. S. Peirce, ‘Vague’, in J.M. Baldwin (ed.), Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology’ (London, Macmillan, 1902), p. 748
D. Pimm, ‘Classroom Language and the Teaching of Mathematics’, in M. Nickson and S. Lerman (eds), The Social Context of Mathematics Education: Theory and Practice (London: South Bank University, 1992), 67–81.
E. F. Prince, J. Frader and C. Bosk, ‘On Hedging in Physician-Physician Discourse’, in R.J. di Pietro (ed.), Linguistics and the Professions. Proceedings of the Second Annual Delaware Symposium on Language Studies (Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1982) 83–96.
T. Rowland, ‘Propositional Attitude’, paper presented at the Tenth International Congress on Mathematical Education, (ICME10), Copenhagen, 2004.
B. Russell, ‘On Propositions: What They Are and What They Mean’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, supplementary volume, 2 (1919) 1–43.
L. Zadeh, ‘Fuzzy Sets.’ Information and Control, 8/3 (1965) 338–53.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2007 Tim Rowland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rowland, T. (2007). ‘Well Maybe Not Exactly, but It’s Around Fifty Basically?’: Vague Language in Mathematics Classrooms. In: Cutting, J. (eds) Vague Language Explored. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230627420_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230627420_5
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-54197-3
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-62742-0
eBook Packages: Palgrave Language & Linguistics CollectionEducation (R0)