» Articles » PMID: 38895756

Numbers in Context: Cardinals, Ordinals, and Nominals in American English

Overview
Journal Cogn Sci
Specialty Psychology
Date 2024 Jun 19
PMID 38895756
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

There are three main types of number used in modern, industrialized societies. Cardinals count sets (e.g., people, objects) and quantify elements of conventional scales (e.g., money, distance), ordinals index positions in ordered sequences (e.g., years, pages), and nominals serve as unique identifiers (e.g., telephone numbers, player numbers). Many studies that have cited number frequencies in support of claims about numerical cognition and mathematical cognition hinge on the assumption that most numbers analyzed are cardinal. This paper is the first to investigate the relative frequencies of different number types, presenting a corpus analysis of morphologically unmarked numbers (not, e.g., "eighth" or "21st") in which we manually annotated 3,600 concordances in the Corpus of Contemporary American English. Overall, cardinals are dominant-both pure cardinals (sets) and measurements (scales)-except in the range 1,000-10,000, which is dominated by ordinal years, like 1996 and 2004. Ordinals occur less often overall, and nominals even less so. Only for cardinals do round numbers, associated with approximation, dominate overall and increase with magnitude. In comparison with other registers, academic writing contains a lower proportion of measurements as well as a higher proportion of ordinals and, to some extent, nominals. In writing, pure cardinals and measurements are usually represented as number words, but measurements-especially larger, unround ones-are more likely to be numerals. Ordinals and nominals are mostly represented as numerals. Altogether, this paper reveals how numbers are used in American English, establishing an initial baseline for any analyses of number frequencies and shedding new light on the cognitive and psychological study of number.

References
1.
Nieder A . Counting on neurons: the neurobiology of numerical competence. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2005; 6(3):177-90. DOI: 10.1038/nrn1626. View

2.
Woodin G, Winter B, Littlemore J, Perlman M, Grieve J . Large-scale patterns of number use in spoken and written English. Corpus Linguist Linguist Theory. 2024; 20(1):123-152. PMC: 10853912. DOI: 10.1515/cllt-2022-0082. View

3.
Dehaene S . The neural basis of the Weber-Fechner law: a logarithmic mental number line. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003; 7(4):145-147. DOI: 10.1016/s1364-6613(03)00055-x. View

4.
Rinaldi L, Marelli M . The use of number words in natural language obeys Weber's law. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2019; 149(7):1215-1230. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000715. View

5.
Gunther F, Rinaldi L, Marelli M . Vector-Space Models of Semantic Representation From a Cognitive Perspective: A Discussion of Common Misconceptions. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2019; 14(6):1006-1033. DOI: 10.1177/1745691619861372. View