Volume 29, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Mathematics is a highly specialised arena of human endeavour, one in which complex notations are invented and are subjected to complex and involved manipulations in the course of everyday work. What part do these writing practices play in mathematical communication, and how can we understand their use in the mathematical world in relation to theories of communication and cognition? To answer this, I examine in detail an excerpt from a research meeting in which communicative board-writing practices can be observed, and attempt to explain the observed exchanges with reference to relevance theory (a cognitivist theory of pragmatics), in combination with the situated cognition paradigm. Successful communication in the excerpt appears well described by the notion of metacognitive acquaintance, as described in Sperber & Wilson (2015), especially when a situated view of cognition is adopted. Though this example is taken from a relatively informal face-to-face communicative situation, characteristics of such situations extend even into formal written mathematics, since even the technical terminology developed in the course of the meeting includes details that may provide readers with a kind of access to the mathematicians’ cognitive processes.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Barany, Michael J.
    2010Mathematical research in context. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. MSc dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bringsjord, Selmer
    1998 Computationalism is dead; now what?Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence10(4). 393–402. 10.1080/095281398146662
    https://doi.org/10.1080/095281398146662 [Google Scholar]
  3. Carston, Robyn
    2002Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  4. Cave, Terence & Deirdre Wilson
    2018Reading beyond the code: Literature and relevance theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198794776.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198794776.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Clark, Andy
    2010Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Clark, Andy & David Chalmers
    1998 The extended mind. Analysis58(1). 7–19. 10.1093/analys/58.1.7
    https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/58.1.7 [Google Scholar]
  7. Clark, Billy
    2013Relevance theory (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139034104
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139034104 [Google Scholar]
  8. de Saussure, Louis & Tim Wharton
    2020 Relevance, effects and affect. International Review of Pragmatics12(2). 183–205. 10.1163/18773109‑01202001
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01202001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dreyfus, Hubert L.
    1978What computers can’t do: The limits of artificial intelligence. New York: Harper Collins.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Forceville, Charles
    2014 Relevance theory as model for analysing visual and multimodal communication. InDavid Machin (ed.), Visual communication, 51–70. Belrin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110255492.51
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110255492.51 [Google Scholar]
  11. Greiffenhagen, Christian
    2014 The materiality of mathematics: Presenting mathematics at the blackboard. The British Journal of Sociology65(3). 502–528. 10.1111/1468‑4446.12037
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12037 [Google Scholar]
  12. Grice, H. Paul
    1989Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hutchins, Edwin
    1995Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2010 Cognitive ecology. Topics in Cognitive Science2(4). 705–715. 10.1111/j.1756‑8765.2010.01089.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01089.x [Google Scholar]
  15. Kolaiti, Patricia
    2019The limits of expression: Language, literature, mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108290746
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108290746 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2020 Perceptual relevance and art: Some tentative suggestions. Journal of Literary Semantics49(2). 99–117. 10.1515/jls‑2020‑2022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jls-2020-2022 [Google Scholar]
  17. Lakatos, Imre
    1976Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139171472
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171472 [Google Scholar]
  18. Lane, Lorenzo
    2016The bridge between worlds: Relating position and disposition in the mathematical field. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. McCallum, Kate
    2020 Situating mathematical communication: The settings, interactions and material practices of contemporary mathematical research. Brighton: University of Brighton PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Noë, Alva
    2009Out of our heads: Why you are not your brain, and other lessons from the biology of consciousness. New York: Hill and Wang.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Pignocchi, Alessandro
    2018 The continuity between art and everyday communication. InFlorian Cova & Sébastien Réhault (eds.), Advances in experimental philosophy of aesthetics, 241–264. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Putnam, Hilary
    1991Representation and reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5891.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5891.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Searle, John R.
    1980 Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences3(3). 417–424. 10.1017/S0140525X00005756
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00005756 [Google Scholar]
  24. 1992The rediscovery of the mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5834.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5834.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Shannon, Claude E. & Warren Weaver
    1949The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Sperber, Dan
    1982 Apparently irrational beliefs. InMartin Hollis & Steven Lukes (eds.), Rationality and relativism, 149–180. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 1997 Intuitive and reflective beliefs. Mind & Language12(1). 67–83. 10.1111/1468‑0017.00036
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00036 [Google Scholar]
  28. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson
    1986/1995Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2015 Beyond speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy15(2). 117–149.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Wharton, Tim
    2008 “MeaningNN” and “showing”: Gricean intentions and relevance-theoretic intentions. Intercultural Pragmatics5(2). 131–152. 10.1515/IP.2008.008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2008.008 [Google Scholar]
  31. Wharton, Tim & Claudia Strey
    2019 Slave to the passions: Making emotions relevant. InKate Scott, Billy Clark & Robyn Carston (eds.), Relevance, pragmatics and interpretation, 253–267. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108290593.022
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108290593.022 [Google Scholar]
  32. Wilson, Deirdre
    2017 Communication, comprehension and ‘non-propositional effects’. Paper presented at theBeyond meaning conference, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 2018 Relevance theory and literary interpretation. InTerence Cave & Deirdre Wilson (eds.), Reading beyond the code: Literature and relevance theory, 185–204. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Wilson, Deirdre & Robyn Carston
    2019 Pragmatics and the challenge of ‘non-propositional’ effects. Journal of Pragmatics1451. 31–38. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  35. Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber
    2004 Relevance theory. InLaurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 607–632. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error