Abstract
The goal of this article is to present a sketch of what, following the German social theorist Arnold Gehlen, may be termed “sensuous cognition.” The starting point of this alternative approach to classical mental-oriented views of cognition is a multimodal “material” conception of thinking. The very texture of thinking, it is suggested, cannot be reduced to that of impalpable ideas; it is instead made up of speech, gestures, and our actual actions with cultural artifacts (signs, objects, etc.). As illustrated through an example from a Grade 10 mathematics lesson, thinking does not occur solely in the head but also in and through a sophisticated semiotic coordination of speech, body, gestures, symbols and tools.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Another paper dealing with the study of motion with the CBR is Arzarello and Robutti (2004).
Many years ago, Fischbein called attention to the fact that, often, students transform a new problem into a different one in order to fit it into a familiar conceptual model for which they have a solution at hand (Fischbein 1989).
As Rita summarized their ideas, “... this (the graph) is what he did (pointing to Pierre). So, he walked normally, he stopped for like, so many seconds, and then he went back...”.
References
Alibali, M., Bassok, M., Solomon, K. O., Syc, S. E., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1999). Illuminating mental representations through speech and gesture. Psychological Science, 10(4), 327–333.
Arzarello, F. (2006a). Mathematical landscapes and their inhabitants: Perceptions, languages, theories. In: M. Niss (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 158–181). Copenhagen, Denmark, July 4–11, 2004. Roskilde University, Denmark.
Arzarello, F. (2006b). Semiosis as a multimodal process. Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa, 9, 267–299 (Special issue on semiotics, culture, and mathematical thinking. Guest editors: L. Radford & B. D’Amore).
Arzarello, F., & Robutti, O. (2004). Approaching functions through motion experiments. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57(3) (PME special issue “Approaching functions through motion experiments,” edited by R. Nemirovsky, M. Borba, & C. DiMattia. CD-Rom, chapter 1).
Cushing, F. H. (1892). Manual concepts: A study of the influence of hand-usage on culture-growth. The American Anthropologist, 4, 289–318.
Deacon, T. W. (1997). The symbolic species. New York: W. W. Norton.
Eagleton, T. (1998). Body work. In S. Regan (Ed.), The Eagleton reader (pp. 157–162). Oxford: Blackwell.
Fischbein, E. (1989). Tacit models and mathematical reasoning. For The Learning of Mathematics, 9(2), 9–14.
Freedman, N. (1977). Hands, words and mind: On the structuralization of body movements during discourse and the capacity for verbal representation. In N. Freedman, & S. Grand (Eds.), Communicative structures and psychic structures: A psychoanalytic approach (pp. 109–132). New York: Plenum.
Garber, P., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2002). Gesture offers insight into problem-solving in adults and children. Cognitive Science, 26, 817–831.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic.
Gehlen, A. (1988). Man. His nature and place in the world. New York: Columbia University Press.
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). Hearing gesture. How our hands help us think. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
Goldin-Meadow, S., Nusbaum, H., Kelly, S. D., & Wagner, S. (2001). Explaining math: Gesturing lightens the load. Psychological Science, 12(6), 516–522.
Gómez, J. C. (2004). Apes, monkeys, children, and the growth of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kendon, A. (Ed.) (1981). Current issues in the study of nonverbal communication. Selections from Semiotica. Hague: Mouton.
Kendon, A. (Ed.) (1993). Human gesture. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Kenneally, C. (2007). The first word. New York: Viking.
Kita, S. (2000). How representational gestures help speaking. In D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and gesture (pp. 162–185). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kita, S. (2003). Pointing. Where language, culture, and cognition meet. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Köhler, W. (1951). The mentality of apes. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Laborit, E. (2003). Le cri de la mouette. Paris: Éditions Pocket Jeunesse.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic.
Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from. New York: Basic.
Lemke, J. (2003). Mathematics in the middle: Measure, picture, gesture, sign, and word. In M. Anderson, A. Sáenz-Ludlow, S. Zellweger, & V. Cifarelli (Eds.), Educational perspectives on mathematics as semiosis: From thinking to interpreting to knowing (pp. 215–234). Ottawa: Legas.
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind. Chicago, IL: Chicago of University Press.
McNeill, D. (Ed.) (2000). Language and gesture. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
McNeill, D. (2005). Gesture and thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Nemirovsky, R. (2003). Three conjectures concerning the relationship between body activity and understanding mathematics. In P. N. B. Dougherty, & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27 Conference of the International Group for the Psychology Of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 105–109). Hawaii: University of Hawaii.
Núñez, R. (2007). Understanding abstraction in mathematics education: Meaning, language, gesture, and the human brain. Conference delivered at the 31st Annual Meeting of the Canadian Mathematics Education Study Group. Fredericton, University of New Brunswick, June 8–12, 2007.
Núñez, R., Edwards, L., & Matos, J. F. (1999). Embodied cognition as grounding for situatedness and context in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39(1–3), 45–65.
Radford, L. (2002). The seen, the spoken and the written. A semiotic approach to the problem of objectification of mathematical knowledge. For the Learning of Mathematics, 22(2), 14–23.
Radford, L. (2003). Gestures, speech and the sprouting of signs. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(1), 37–70.
Radford, L. (2004). Cose sensibili, essenze, oggetti matematici ed altre ambiguità [Sensible things, essences, mathematical objects and other ambiguities]. La Matematica e la Sua Didattica, 1, 4–23 (English version available at: http://laurentian.ca/educ/lradford/).
Radford, L. (2006a). Elements of a cultural theory of objectification. Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa, 9, 103–129 (Special issue on semiotics, culture and mathematical thinking. Available at: http://laurentian.ca/educ/lradford/).
Radford, L. (2006b). The anthropology of meaning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 39–65.
Radford, L. (2008). Towards a cultural theory of learning. In L. Radford, G. Schubring & F. Seeger (Eds.), Semiotics in mathematics education: Epistemology, history, classroom, and culture. Rotterdam: Sense (in press).
Radford, L., Bardini, C., & Sabena, C. (2007). Perceiving the general: The multisemiotic dimension of students’ algebraic activity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 507–530.
Radford, L., Bardini, C., Sabena, C., Diallo, P., & Simbagoye, A. (2005). On embodiment, artifacts, and signs: A semiotic–cultural perspective on mathematical thinking. In H. L. Chick, & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 129–136). Australia: University of Melbourne.
Radford, L., Cerulli, M., Demers, S., & Guzmán, J. (2004). The sensual and the conceptual: Artefact-mediated kinesthetic actions and semiotic activity. In M. J. Høines, & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28 Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 73–80). Norway: Bergen University College.
Radford, L., Demers, S., Guzmán, J., & Cerulli, M. (2003). Calculators, graphs, gestures, and the production meaning. In P. N. B. Dougherty, & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27 Conference of the International Group for the Psychology Of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 55–62). Hawaii: University of Hawaii.
Robutti, O. (2006). Motion, technology, gesture in interpreting graphs. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 13(3), 117–126.
Roth, M.-W. (2001). Gestures: Their role in teaching and learning. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 365–392.
Sabena, C. (in press). On the semiotics of gestures. In L. Radford, G. Schubring & F. Seeger (Eds.), Semiotics in mathematics education: Epistemology, history, classroom, and culture. Rotterdam: Sense.
Savage-Rumbaugh, S., & Lewin, R. (1994). Kanzi. New York: Wiley.
Seitz, J. A. (2000). The bodily basis of thought. New Ideas in Psychology, 18, 23–40.
Tomasello, M., & Call, J. (1997). Primate cognition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). In A. Kozulin (Ed.), Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind. A sociocultural approach to mediate action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Acknowledgment
I wish to thank the three reviewers for their insightful comments on a previous version of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Radford, L. Why do gestures matter? Sensuous cognition and the palpability of mathematical meanings. Educ Stud Math 70, 111–126 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9127-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9127-3