Reviews for Concise Encyclopedia of Educational Linguistics

The average rating for Concise Encyclopedia of Educational Linguistics based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2014-05-10 00:00:00 Leah Meisels A fascinating, and in many ways, successful "ethnomathematical" (though Urton has some qualms about the term) survey into both contemporary and ancient number-culture of the Quechua-speaking peoples of the Andes. Urton puts to good use both his vast expertise in Incan history (quipu-accounting in particular), and months of fieldwork in Andean farming and weaving communities, where he has gained intimate knowledge of Quechuan vocabulary and social practices surrounding counting. "The Social Life of Numbers" is at its best when Urton uses this unique knowledge combo to reveal us the long scope, such as when he shows the perseverance of a distinct, local "philosophy" of numbers which the Andeans have preserved as remarkably constant for over 500 years, through the turmoils of colonial invasions and governments. Urton's prose is smooth, conversational even, and especially the last chapters with their colourful examples from both Inca history and modern Quechua communities make for engaging reading, whereas the first chapters (after the introduction) with their detailed discussion of grammar and individual number-words etc. will probably be read in detail only by hardcore enthusiasts of linguistics etc.. I unfortunately doubt that Urton succeeds in the most ambitious goal that he sets down for himself in his Introduction, that is, in convincing hardcore mathematicians and philosophers that anthropological surveys of non-Western number-cultures can contribute to philosophy of mathematics. Partly because the book is very light on mathematics (which Urton recognises), partly because it does not engage deeply enough with any whatever contemporary theory his research could influence (Platonism?), and he proves his arguments by illustration: the style of the book will appeal to anthropologists and humanists, not so much scientists. But, also because his main findings do not, in my opinion, pose any threat or otherwise illuminate modern Platonist theories of numbers? It is true that Urton convincingly shows that Quechua culture appears to have a distinct (what Urton calls) "ontology and philosophy" of numbers: whereas numbers and their manipulation are thought as abstract, objective and value-free in the West, the Quechua vocabulary and metaphor for numbering is intimately linked with e.g. social relationship (kinship, coupling, hierarchy...) and moral values. E.g. whereas Western mathematicians use numbers as a "neutral" way to represent reality, the Quetchua counters tend to see counting as a "moral and ethical" task of "rectifying" balances in the universe. Some things that belong together should never be separated into units from their "natural group-state" through counting, such as herd animals; and pre-Columbian Inca tribute lists betray the desire to record and organise society so that people and resources exist/manifest only as "ideal", decimal (10, 20, 50 etc.) number groups. However, is this culture-specific "ontology and philosophy" of numbers that Urton describes, not best titled only as (as Urton sometimes does) "experience of numbers" or "social life of numbers"? Philosophers of mathematics tend to be concerned primarily with questions of what numbers metaphysically *are*, what do they *refer to*; Platonists, who continue to represent the most popular school of thought, would say that to abstract objects that exist independently of us. Regardless of the semiotic sign (numeral, number-word, quipu-knot, five fingers...) that a human in any culture could use to communicate the number "5", it always refers to this same Platonic "5" - which is why any culture-specific mathematical system is ultimately always translatable to all other languages/systems. The Quechua "5" might carry tones and associations that the English "5" does not (of perfection, completeness, "younger descendants" etc. according to Urton), just like all words in different languages tend to have different social histories and thus slightly different messages - but that does change that their common nominator is the same reference to to the same Platonic "5"? Why should it be of concern to Platonists that not all human cultures treat mathematics as universal and value-free?

Review # 2 was written on 2014-10-06 00:00:00 Jose Pujol I got this for when I was studing English Language at A level. I've skim-read it. But she's definitely favoring women.