An interesting video with
Dr.
Sarah Wiseman from one of my
favorite sites, NUMBERPHILE.
Dr Wiseman argues that we respond differently
when we read familiar and unfamiliar numbers (the unfamiliar numbers are
non-numbers, like non-words)!
We can read the number 1492 in four ways:
As a
series of digits (1, 4, 9, 2).
As a
number word (one thousand four hundred and
ninety two). This kind of reading
requires an understanding of the decimal numeral system.
As a number with a mathematical meaning (for example, it's an even number, less than 2000, 1000+492
etc.)
And as a familiar number, with an encyclopedic meaning - the number's meaning in our culture (the year
Columbus discovered America, and also the year the Jews were expelled from
Spain).
A familiar
number can have a personal meaning for us (for example, our ID number, the ages
of our children or our address).
When reading the number 1492 in its
encyclopedic meaning, we don't refer to its quantitative meaning but rather read
it as a word. Dr Wiseman talks about a
person with number aphasia, who can read numbers only when they have an encyclopedic
meaning for him.
It's possible, that a similar thing occurs with
dyscalculic children – an easier reading of familiar numbers, via their
encyclopedic meaning, compared with difficulty reading unfamiliar numbers
(since the encyclopedic route is not available for these
"non-numbers"' and since reading them requires using the base 10
system, that is, their quantitative meaning).
I wonder if we read familiar numbers faster
than unfamiliar numbers, and if the encyclopedic meaning of familiar numbers
influences (or maybe disrupts) the processing of their quantitative meaning.
No comments:
Post a Comment