Search

Before the advent of symbolism, i.e. before the end of the 16th Century, algebraic calculations were made using natural language. Through a kind of metaphorical process, a few terms from everyday life (e.g. thing, root) acquired a technical mathematical status and constituted the specialized language of algebra. The introduction of letters and other symbols (e.g. “+”, “=”) made it possible to achieve what is considered one of the greatest cultural accomplishments in human history, namely, the constitution of a symbolic algebraic language and the concomitant rise of symbolic thinking. Because of their profound historical ties with natural language, the emerging syntax and meanings of symbolic algebraic language were marked in a definite way by the syntax and meanings of the former. However, at a certain point, these ties were loosened and algebraic symbolism became a language in its own right. Without alluding to the theory of recapitulation, in this paper, we travel back and forth from history to the present to explore key passages in the constitution of the syntax and meanings of symbolic algebraic language. A contextual semiotic analysis of the use of algebraic terms in 9th century Arabic as well as in contemporary students' mathematical activity, sheds some light on the conceptual challenges posed by the learning of algebra. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ordinary semantic compositionality (meaning of whole determined from meanings of parts plus composition) can serve to explain how a hearer manages to assign an appropriate meaning to a new sentence. But it does not serve to explain how the speaker manages to find an appropriate sentence for expressing a new thought. For this we would need a principle of inverse compositionality, by which the expression of a complex content is determined by the expressions of it parts and the mode of composition. But this presupposes that contents have constituent structure, and this cannot be taken for granted. However, it can be proved that if a certain principle of substitutivity is valid for a particular language, then the meanings expressed by its sentences can justifiably be treated as structured. In its simplest form, this principle says that if in a complex expression a constituent is replaced by another constituent with a different meaning, the new complex has a meaning different from the original. This principle is again inversely related to the normal compositional principle of substitutivity. The combination of ordinary and inverse compositionality is here called ‘strong compositionality’. The proof is carried out in the algebraic framework developed by Wilfrid Hodges and Dag Westerståhl. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]