Thinking about the future: The role of spatial metaphors for time

Journal of Pragmatics, 2011

Language is rich in spatial reference, indicating where one is or is going to, but also representing the position or the spatial dimension of entities depicts vital information in any communicative interaction. This ubiquity of spatial reference is dramatically augmented by non-literal forms of spatial reference as found in metaphorical extensions from the concrete source domain SPACE to abstract target domains like TIME. 1 Examples such as we are ahead of the times, let's meet at three o'clock or I am running out of time are illustrations of spatial TIME metaphors in everyday language. Metaphorical extensions result -according to Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) -from human propensity to categorize and represent abstract concepts with the help of concrete, (often) spatial, configurations. 2 To speak with Johnson and Lakoff (2002:253) ''. . .we are conceptualizing and reasoning about Abstract concepts on the basis of embodied meaning from the spatial and corporeal source domains''. These metaphorical extensions are based on cognitive mapping processes in which certain structural aspects of a concrete source domain like SPACE are mapped onto abstract target domains like TIME.

2018

Linguistic relativity holds an idea that structure of language affects the ways people conceptualize the world. It grows into two hypotheses which are linguistic relativism and determinism. The hypotheses explain how language and culture relate one another. The close relation is reflected through different system of sign, systematic conventional use of sounds or written symbol in different society (Crystal, 1971 and 1992) as what occurs in metaphor. Metaphor is not only written symbol but also thought and action rooted in our bodily experience (Yu, 1998, p.43). Therefore time as abstract concept should be best conceptualized through space. Keywords : metaphor, spatiotemporal metaphor, ego-moving, time-moving

Across cultures, people employ space to construct representations of time. English exhibits two deictic space-time metaphors: the "moving ego" metaphor conceptualizes the ego as moving forward through time and the "moving time" metaphor conceptualizes time as moving forward towards the ego. Earlier research investigating the psychological reality of these metaphors has shown that engaging in certain types of spatial-motion thinking may influence how people reason about events in time. More recently, research has shown that people's interactions with cultural artifacts may also influence their representations of time. Extending research on space-time mappings in new directions, three experiments investigated the role of cultural artifacts, namely calendars and clocks, in the interpretation of metaphorical expressions about time. Taken together, the results provide initial evidence that, in their interpretation of ambiguous metaphorical expressions about time, people automatically access and use spatial representations of absolute time, whereby moving forward in space corresponds with moving later in time. Moreover, asking participants to use a reverse space-time mapping causes interference, which is reflected through their temporal reasoning.

Journal of Child Language, 2012

ABSTRACTTime is frequently expressed with spatial motion, using one of three different metaphor types: moving-time, moving-ego, and sequence-as-position. Previous work shows that children can understand and explain moving-time metaphors by age five (Özçalışkan, 2005). In this study, we focus on all three metaphor types for time, and ask whether metaphor type has an effect on children's metaphor comprehension and explanation abilities. Analysis of the responses of three- to six-year-old children and adults showed that comprehension and explanation of all three metaphor types emerge at an early age. Moreover, children's metaphor comprehension and explanation vary by metaphor type: children perform better in understanding and explaining metaphors that structure time in relation to the observer of time (moving-ego, moving-time) than metaphors that structure time without any relation to the observer of time (sequence-as-position-on-a-path). Our findings suggest that children'...

SSRN eLibrary, 2010

2004

Abstract In this paper we present the results of a preliminary survey to investigate the range of temporal metaphors in mundane discourse in English. We concentrate in particular on temporal metaphors that involve space and movement, which we call 'spatio-kinetic'temporal metaphors. We present a sample of real text showing how, even in a short piece of discourse, a wide variety of temporal metaphors is used.

2006

Research in cognitive linguistics and in processing of temporal metaphors has traditionally distinguished between Moving-Ego and Moving-Time mappings: Either the Ego is construed as moving regarding fixed temporal landmarks or Time is construed as moving regarding the Ego. Both of these metaphors involve time events in reference to an Ego, which specifies the present time "now." We build on recent theoretical suggestions for a more fundamental classification of temporal metaphors: Egoand Time-Reference-Point metaphors (Ego-RP and Time-RP). The distinction focuses on the role of reference points in ascribing orientation, rather than on the identity of a moving entity (Ego or Time). Using visual priming experiments we provide evidence of the psychological reality of the Time-RP metaphor, a temporal metaphor with no reference to an Ego.

A growing body of literature has established that spatiotemporal metaphoric reasoning processes can be affected by the active experience of motion (such as actual motion, fictive motion, and abstract motion). In this study, the effects of metaphoric gestures on spatiotemporal metaphor use and the effects of addressee perspective on comprehension of these gestures are investigated. Participants were asked an ambiguous question that yields different responses depending on which metaphor variant is used. This question was asked with simultaneously produced metaphoric gestures depicting either sagit-tal or lateral motion and presented to participants either in shared perspective (side by side) or opposing (face to face) perspective. Findings suggest that not only does gesture influence metaphoric reasoning in discourse interpretation, but that addressees reliably interpret gestures from their own perspective, even when it is not shared with the speaker. Furthermore, conversational bystanders similarly adopt the perspective of the addressee in gesture comprehension.

What factors motivate our understanding of metaphoric statements about time? English exhibits two deictic space-time metaphors: the Moving Ego metaphor conceptualises the ego as moving forward through time, while the Moving Time metaphor conceptualises 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 (. 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.

Psychological Science

In Arabic, as in many languages, the future is “ahead” and the past is “behind.” Yet in the research reported here, we showed that Arabic speakers tend to conceptualize the future as behind and the past as ahead of them, despite using spoken metaphors that suggest the opposite. We propose a new account of how space-time mappings become activated in individuals’ minds and entrenched in their cultures, the temporal-focus hypothesis: People should conceptualize either the future or the past as in front of them to the extent that their culture (or subculture) is future oriented or past oriented. Results support the temporal-focus hypothesis, demonstrating that the space-time mappings in people’s minds are conditioned by their cultural attitudes toward time, that they depend on attentional focus, and that they can vary independently of the space-time mappings enshrined in language.