| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"J64h4h9gxz","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ16Ӻ","startOffset":1,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ17Ӻ","endOffset":864°Ӻ,"quote":"The hypothesis of alternative figural representations that are “equivalent” in that they are all semantically connected to one word, has the virtue that it at once fits how children come to recognize a considerable variety of figural patterns as legitimate referents of a number word long before they have any conception of number or numerosity. The sound image of “three” is easily associated with whatever perceptual configurations are explicitly called “three” by the adults in whose company the child grows up. There will be finger patterns, patterns of dots and lines, arrangements of particular design elements (hearts, diamonds, etc.), and of course the variations of the numeral 3. \nSome of these figural patterns area “iconic” in that they are composites of perceptual units which, if considered quantitatively (by a counter who already has numerical concepts) represent the numerosity designated by the number word with which they are associated. Others, like the Arabic numerals (and the Roman numerals above III) are not iconic, because they are not constituted by a collection of items that has the indicated numerosity. Thus I am suggesting that, in subitizing, the child associates figural patterns with number words by a semantic connection and not because of the number of perceptual units of which they are composed. In acts of subitizing, the figural patterns that give rise to it are taken as figural wholes and not as composites of units. In fact, they are recognized as a global configuration, not as a collection of countable items.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321019266462329114922":^°°,^"jQuery321019266462329114922":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1595600737046°
|
