“Learning mathematics may now be defined as individualizing mathematical discourse, that

is, as the process of becoming able to have mathematical communication not only with
others, but also with oneself. The institutional context and discursive positionings of the
mathematics classroom come to the fore here, bridging the issues of identification and
practice. The possibility of gendered and classed “designated identities” as mathematics
learners (Sfard & Prusak, 2005) and children’s reaction to “hard” problems are similarly
aspects of their self-positioning within the available discourses, which include powerful
discourses about mathematics. There is also an emotional aspect to these positionings of self:
identifying as “good at mathematics” involves particular investments which take place within
the interpersonal context of learning, and the role of teacher–pupil relationships is a crucial
aspect of this socio-emotional back-ground. The language of mathematics is complex and
dense, and its relationship to everyday language is far from straightforward. When embedded
within the further complexity of pedagogic discourse structures, mathematical language
begins to present a major challenge for learners and indeed for teachers. Research in this area
has developed considerably from initial observations about the potential for confusion due to
specialist vocabulary uses, notation and symbolism, and the role of metaphor and modeling,
to recent more sustained linguistic and semiotic treatments. Thus studies of language in
mathematics education have shown the significance of the fact that numbers, arithmetic and
mathematics use a particular vocabulary system and syntax.
It is the meanings, including the styles of meaning and modes of argument, that
constitute a register, rather than the words and structures as such. In order to express new
meanings, it may be necessary to invent new words; but there are many different ways in
which a language can add new meanings, and inventing words is only one of them. We
should not think of a mathematics register as consisting solely of terminology, or of the
development of a register as simply a process of adding new word. One way in which the
register makes meaning is through the use of conceptual metaphor. Mathematics makes
heavy use of a number of other linguistic devices which make meaning, including two types
of relational clauses which classify and define mathematics, and also bridge between its
linguistic and symbolic representations. The first of these makes non-reversible attributions
which classify objects and events within types(e.g. “a square is a quadrilateral”)as Veel (p.
195) suggests, “these clauses render explicit to students the organization of uncommonsense
knowledge in mathematics and play an important role in apprenticing students into
mathematical knowledge.” The second type uses a reversible identifying relation to define
technical terms in less technical language(e.g. “the mean score is the sum of the scores
divided by the number of scores”)which not only defines but also bridges between language
and symbol, providing a device which “parallels the algebraic formula. Overall, “a striking
feature of mathematical language is the way it builds up hierarchies of technicality . Each
successive level of technicality takes the language user one step further away from any
‘congruent’ or ‘everyday’ construal of meaning. This brief overview of research into the
mathematics register illustrates that it is not only complex and demanding for a learner as
they build on their everyday understanding of language to a mathematical understanding, but
also that mathematical meaning is constructed within the language itself. mathematical
language consists of more than just specialist vocabulary. Learning to engage in
mathematical discourse thus involves learning more than definitions of mathematical words.
[the] formation [of definitions] and their incorporation into mathematical arguments are
fundamental mathematical activities that take place in language. Induction into mathematical
practices must involve students in developing ways of speaking and writing that enable them
to engage in these activities. One of the major issues which Morgan’s research alerts us to is
that of differential access to mathematics for different groups of learners. In attempting to
analyze and explain the nature of the relationship between social class and underachievement
in mathematics, a number of writers have argued that the content of mathematics is biased
towards middle-class learners. So, for example, Cooper and Dunne (2000) report that
working-class students perform as well as middle-class students on decontextualised tasks,
but drop behind on embedded tasks despite the fact that these are commonly assumed to be
“easier” as a result of their embeddedness. Mathematics teaching makes considerable use of
simple lexical metaphor—for example, early arithmetic teaching borrows from real-world
experiences in its use of ordinary language such as “having” and “owing,” “borrowing” and
“carrying,” or we can say “a function is a machine,” or “an equation is a balance.” Joy notes
that such metaphorical use serves a number of purposes for both teachers and learners,
making it possible to talk and think about a concept, or to relate it to what is already known.
However, it can of course distort perception, or can confuse because it does not apply in all
situations. Despite the potential for confusion, the majority of the children recognize the real
objectives of the lesson to the extent of ignoring the shopping analogy when doing the
calculations. But embedding new concepts in contexts which children are already familiar
with may fudge the issue for some. Classroom Discourse and the Development of Participant
Identities. That classrooms are characterized by distinctive patterns of interaction is a well.
Bristol also drew on this type of analysis, suggesting, like Heath, that literacy practices at
home were key to later school success.