Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T14:57:14.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The top trumps of time: factors motivating the resolution of temporal ambiguity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2016

SARAH E. DUFFY  and
VYVYAN EVANS
SARAH E. DUFFY*
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham, UK
VYVYAN EVANS
Affiliation:
Bangor University, UK
*
†Address for correspondence: Sarah Duffy, University of Birmingham, Department of English Language and Applied Linguistics, Birmingham, UK. Email: s.duffy.1@bham.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What factors motivate our understanding of metaphoric statements about time? English exhibits two deictic space–time metaphors: the Moving Ego metaphor conceptualizes the ego as moving forward through time, while the Moving Time metaphor conceptualizes time as moving forward towards the ego (Clark, 1973). In addition to earlier research investigating spatial influences on temporal reasoning (e.g., Boroditsky & Ramscar, 2002), recent lines of research have provided evidence that a complex of factors, such as personality differences, event valence, lifestyle, and emotional experiences, may also influence people’s perspectives on the movement of events in time – providing new insights on metaphor and its ability to reflect thought and feeling (e.g., Duffy & Feist, 2014; Duffy, Feist, & McCarthy, 2014; Margolies & Crawford, 2008; Richmond, Wilson, & Zinken, 2012). Probing these findings further, two studies were conducted to investigate whether the interpretation of a temporally ambiguous question may arise from an interaction between the valence of the event and aspects of the personality (Experiment 1) and lifestyle (Experiment 2) of the comprehender. The findings we report on shed further light on the complex nature of temporal reasoning. While this involves conceptual metaphor, it also invokes more complex temporal frames of reference (t-FoRs) (Evans, 2013), which are only partially subserved by space-to-time conceptual metaphors.

Keywords

Moving TimeMoving Egometaphorambiguityindividual differencespersonalitylifestylevalencet-FoRs
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 2017 , pp. 293 - 315
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The authors would like to thank Chris Sinha for his helpful feedback on a previous version of the article.

References

references

Abouserie, R. (1994). Sources and levels of stress in relation to locus of control and self esteem in university students. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 14(3), 323–330.Google Scholar
Argyle, M., & Lu, L. (1990). The happiness of extraverts. Personality and Individual Differences, 11(10), 1011–1017.Google Scholar
Ashton, M., Jackson, D., Paunonen, S., Helmes, E., & Rothstein, M. (1995). The criterion validity of broad factor scales versus specific facet scales. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 432–442.Google Scholar
Bender, A., Beller, S., & Bennardo, G. (2010). Temporal frames of reference: conceptual analysis and empirical evidence from German, English, Mandarin Chinese, and Tongan. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 10, 283–307.Google Scholar
Bender, A., Bennardo, G., & Beller, S. (2005). Spatial frames of reference for temporal relations: a conceptual analysis in English, German, and Tongan. In Bara, B., Barsalou, L., & Bucciarelli, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 220–225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boroditsky, L., & Ramscar, M. (2002). The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychological Science, 13(2), 185–188.Google Scholar
Brown, M., & Ralph, S. (1999). Using the DYSA programme to reduce stress and anxiety in first year university students. Pastoral Care, 17(3), 8–13.Google Scholar
Bush, H., Thompson, M., & Van Tuvergen, N. (1985). Personal assessment of stress factors for college students. Journal of School Health, 55(9), 370–375.Google Scholar
Cacioppo, J., Priester, J., & Berntson, G. (1993). Rudimentary determinants of attitudes: II. Arm flexion and extension have differential effects on attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 5–17.Google Scholar
Chen, M., & Bargh, J. (1999). Consequences of automatic evaluation: immediate behavioural predispositions to approach or avoid the stimulus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 215–224.Google Scholar
Clark, H. (1973). Space, time, semantics, and the child. In Moore, T. (Ed.), Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language (pp. 27–63). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clark, L., & Watson, D. (1991). Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 316–336.Google Scholar
Duffy, S., & Feist, M. (2014). Individual differences in the interpretation of ambiguous statements about time. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(1), 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, S., Feist, M., & McCarthy, S. (2014). Moving through time: the role of personality in three real life contexts. Cognitive Science, 38(8), 1662–1674.Google Scholar
Elliot, A., & Thrash, T. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 804–818.Google Scholar
Elvevåg, B., Helsen, K., De Hert, M., Sweers, K., & Storms, G. (2011). Metaphor interpretation and use: a window into semantics in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 133(1/3), 205–211.Google Scholar
Emmons, R., & Diener, E. (1986). Influence of impulsivity and sociability on subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1211–1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V. (2004). The structure of time: language, meaning, and temporal cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Evans, V. (2013). Language and time: a cognitive linguistics approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Furnham, A. (1981). Personality and activity preference. British Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 57–68.Google Scholar
Galton, A. (2011). Time flies but space doesn’t: limits to the spatialization of time. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 695–703.Google Scholar
Harmon-Jones, E. (2003). Anger and the behavioral approach system. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 995–1005.Google Scholar
Hauser, D., Carter, M., & Meier, B. (2009). Mellow Monday and furious Friday: the approach-related link between anger and time representation. Cognition and Emotion, 23(6), 1166–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamalian, A., & Tversky, B. (2012). Gestures alter thinking about time. In Miyake, N., Peebles, D., & Cooper, R., , R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 503–508). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
John, O. (1990). The ‘Big Five’ factor taxonomy: dimensions of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In Pervin, L. (Ed.), Handbook of personality: theory and research (pp. 66–100). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
John, O., Naumann, L., & Soto, C. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big-Five trait taxonomy: history, measurement and conceptual issues. In John, O., Robins, R., & Pervin, L. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: theory and research, 3rd ed. (pp. 114–158). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
John, O., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In Pervin, L., & John, O. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: theory and research, 2nd ed. (pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Kohn, J., & Frazer, G. (1986). An academic stress scale: identification and rated importance of academic stressors. Psychological Reports, 59, 415–426.Google Scholar
Kranjec, A. (2006). Extending spatial frames of reference to temporal concepts. In Forbus, K., Gentner, D., & Regier, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 447–452). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lai, V., & Boroditsky, L. (2013). The immediate and chronic influence of spatio-temporal metaphors on the mental representations of time in English, Mandarin, and Mandarin-English speakers. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 142. Online: <doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00142>.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Lee, A., & Ji, L. (2014). Moving away from a bad past and toward a good future: Feelings influence the metaphorical understanding of time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 21–26.Google Scholar
Lucas, R., Diener, A., Grob, A. Suh, E., & Shao, L. (2000). Cross-cultural evidence for the fundamental features of extraversion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), 452–468.Google Scholar
Margolies, S., & Crawford, L. (2008). Event valance and spatial metaphors of time. Cognition and Emotion, 22(7), 1401–1414.Google Scholar
Matheny, K., Roque-Tovar, B., & Curlette, W. (2008). Perceived stress, coping resources, and life satisfaction among U.S. and Mexican college students: a cross-cultural study. Anales de Psicología, 24, 49–57.Google Scholar
Matlock, T., Ramscar, M., & Boroditsky, L. (2005). On the experiential link between spatial and temporal language. Cognitive Science, 29, 655–664.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matlock, T., Holmes, K., Srinivasan, M., & Ramscar, M. (2011). Even abstract motion influences the understanding of time. Metaphor and Symbol, 26, 260–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGlone, M., & Harding, J. (1998). Back (or forward?) to the future: the role of perspective in temporal language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24, 1211–1223.Google Scholar
Moore, K. (2006). Space to time mappings and temporal concepts. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2), 199–244.Google Scholar
Moore, K. (2011). Ego-perspective and field-based frames of reference: temporal meanings of FRONT in Japanese, Wolof, and Aymara. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(3), 759–776.Google Scholar
Neumann, R., Forster, J., & Strack, F. (2003). Motor compatibility: the bidirectional link between behavior and evaluation. In Musch, J. & Klauer, K. (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 371–391). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Núñez, R., & Cooperrider, K. (2013). The tangle of space and time in human cognition. Trends in Cognitive Science, 17(5), 220–229.Google Scholar
Núñez, R., Motz, B., & Teuscher, U. (2006). Time after time: the psychological reality of the Ego- and Time-Reference-Point distinction in metaphorical construals of time. Metaphor and Symbol, 21, 133–146.Google Scholar
Pierceall, E., & Keim, M. (2007). Stress and coping strategies among community college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 31, 703–712.Google Scholar
Ramscar, M., Matlock, T., & Dye, M. (2010). Running down the clock: the role of expectation in our understanding of time and motion. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(5), 589–615.Google Scholar
Richmond, J., Wilson, J., & Zinken, J. (2012). A feeling for the future: How does agency in time metaphors relate to feelings? European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(7), 813–823.Google Scholar
Rothe-Wulf, A., Beller, S., & Bender, A. (2015). Temporal frames of reference in three Germanic languages: individual consistency, cultural consensus, and cross-linguistic variability. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(5), 917–939.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T. (2011). Reference frames of space and time in language. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 704–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. (1978). On the expression of spatio-temporal relations in language. In Greenberg, J., Ferguson, C., & Moravcsik, E. (Eds.), Universals of human language, vol. III: word structure (pp. 369–400). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Watson, D. (1988). Intraindividual and interindividual analyses of positive and negative affect: their relation to health complaints, perceived stress, and daily activities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1020–1030.Google Scholar
Zinken, J. (2010). Temporal frames of reference. In Evans, V. & Chilton, P. (Eds.), Language, cognition and space: the state of the art and new directions (pp. 479–498). London: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar