A number of people were involved in helping with this project and they need to be thanked for their hard work. These were Natalie Cooper who did all the transcribing. Sally Henderson who as a research assistant had the job of counting different linguistic features over and over again. Finally, Frances Neill who happened to be in the wrong place at the right time and so read countless drafts of most of this report. Without them, this report would have taken even longer to produce.

The language used by Year 4 and Year 8 students from different decile groups, both genders and Pasifika and non–Pasifika low decile students was analysed when they were responding four tasks involving mathematics.

The main features included in mathematical explanations were Premises, Consequences and Conclusions.

Other appropriate features included Introductions, Suppositions and Elaborators.

By and large, students who gave correct answers used more appropriate language.

The pattern of use of these structures amongst the subgroups differed with the questions being answered. Where differences were notable, Year 8 boys from high decile schools were most proficient in the use of these mathematical linguistic structures.

While there were few differences between Pasifika and non-Pasifika students from low decile schools, Pasifika students were less likely to use Premises or Consequences in their explanations.

Appropriate mathematical responses were seen to depend upon appropriate mathematical language, knowledge of how to interact with a teacher and knowledge of how to structure mathematical explanations or justifications.

It is recommended that teachers ensure that students use the linguistic elements in their mathematical explanations.