I respond to three responses to my 2015 Current Anthropology article, “Numerosity Structures the Expression of Quantity in Lexical Numbers and Grammatical Number.” This study examined the categorical and geographical distribution of lexical numbers, also known as counting numbers, and grammatical number, the ability to linguistically distinguish singular and plural. Both these features of language conform to the perceptual experience of quantity, which consists of subitization, the ability to rapidly and unambiguously identify one, two, and three, and magnitude appreciation, the ability to appreciate bigger and smaller in the numerical quantity of groups when the difference lies above a threshold of noticeability. My reply to Sutliff disagrees with her contention that mathematical ideas are mentally innate on the grounds that this ignores their explicit construction through the interaction of human psychological, physiological, and behavioral abilities with materiality. My reply to Read expands on the idea that language obscures cross-cultural conceptual variability in number concepts because everything that translates as “three” does not necessarily have the same numerical properties. Finally, my reply to Everett notes that investigating numerical origins means discarding the deeply entrenched assumption of linguistic primacy on the grounds that material forms make numerical intuitions tangible, visible, and manipulable in ways that language cannot and, moreover, provide an alinguistic bootstrap mechanism that accounts for the emergence of both concepts of number and words for the concepts.
Number Concepts Are Constructed through Material Engagement: A Reply to Sutliff, Read, and Everett
