Construing Temporal Magnitudes: Implications for Event Conceptualisation

in Cognitive Semantics
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

The paper investigates the effect of alternating construals of temporal magnitudes on individuals’ reasoning about events that are explicitly embedded in time. Specifically, I analyse the meaning-making potential of “cumulative” and “fractional” construals, as in “30 minutes” and “half an hour”. Inspired by Cognitive Linguistics postulates, the hypothesis is that although these alternate constructions of time quantities are numerically equivalent, i.e. the objective time intervals designated are the same, they will differently prompt conceptualisation and reasoning about events they structure. This hypothesis is empirically tested with native and non-native speakers of English at four levels of time granularity, for seconds/minute, minutes/hour, weeks/month and months/year configurations.

The findings show that there is a consistent major effect indicating a semantic-conceptual asymmetry between cumulative and fractional construals for the seconds/minute level, and a weaker, though analogous, effect for the months/year level, with the fractional construals ‘magnifying’ the quantity. Critically, the effect is found to hold in the case of conceptualisers for whom English, in which stimuli were presented, was their L2 while English native speakers appear to be ‘immune’.

I discuss the potential motivation behind those patterns as well as the effect’s theoretical and practical implications. Finally, the findings are then related to a study on individuals’ intuitive predictions about meaning-making implications of alternating between cumulative and fractional construals of time.

Construing Temporal Magnitudes: Implications for Event Conceptualisation

in Cognitive Semantics

Sections

References

Alter A. 2010. Quirks in Time Perception. Predictable quirks in how people perceive the passage of time. Psychology Today.

Alverson H. 1994. Semantics and experience: Universal metaphors of time in English Mandarin Hindi and Sesotho. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bergen B. & Wheeler K. 2010. Grammatical aspect and mental simulation. Brain & Language 112150158.

Blom J. D. 2010. A Dictionary of Hallucinations. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.

Boroditsky L. 2000. Metaphoric Structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition75(1) 128.

Caldwell-Harris C. L. 2015. Emotionality differences between a native and foreign language: Implications for everyday life. Current Directions in Psychological Science24(3) 214219.

Casasanto D. & Boroditsky L. 2008. Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition106579593.

Cheng R.-K. Macdonald Ch. J. & Meck W. H. 2006. Differential effects of cocaine and ketamine on time estimation: Implications for neurobiological models of interval timing. Pharmacology Biochemystry and Behavior85 (1) 114122.

Cipolletti H. McFarlane S. & Weissglass C. 2016. The moral foreign-language effect. Philosophical Psychology29(1) 2340.

Clark H. H. 1973. Space, time, semantics and the child. In T. E. Moore (ed.) Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York, NY: Academic Press27-64.

Clay E. R. (anonymous) 1882. The alternative: a study in psychology. London: Macmillan.

Costa A. Foucart A. Hayakawa S. Aparici M. Apesteguia J. Heafner J. & Keysar B. 2014. Your Morals Depend on Language. PLoS ONE9(4): e94842. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094842.

Deckert M. & Pęzik P. 2014. Degrees of propositionality in construals of time quantities. Research in Language24341353.

Deckert M. 2016. Im-/precision in temporal magnitude representation: a corpus-based contrastive accountLinguistica Silesiana37105124.

Eagleman D . 2012. http://www.theupexperience.com/past_speakers/2012_speakers/test.

Ekman P. 1985/1992. Telling lies. New York: Norton.

Evans V. 2004. The structure of time: Language meaning and temporal cognition. John Benjamins: Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

Evans V. 2013. Language and Time: A Cognitive Linguistics Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Evans V. & Green M. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ and Edinburgh: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates/Edinburgh University Press.

Fausey C. & Boroditsky L. 2010. Subtle linguistic cues influence perceived blame and financial liability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review17 ( 5 ) 644650 doi: 10.3758/PBR.17.5.644.

Fausey C. & Boroditsky L. 2011. Who dunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eye-witness memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review18: 1150157. doi:10.3758/s13423-010-0021-5.

Flaherty M. 1999. A watched pot: How we experience time. New York, ny: New York University Press.

Fedden S. & Boroditsky L. 2012. Spatialization of time in Mian. Frontiers in Psychology3 : 485. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00485.

Frenck-Mestre C. 2002. An on-line look at sentence processing in the second language. In R. Heredia Altarriba J. (eds.) Bilingual Sentence Processing. North Holland217236.

Geeraerts D. & Cuyckens H. 2007. “Introducing Cognitive Linguistics” In Geeraerts D. and Cuyckens H. (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press321.

Gentner D. Imai M. & Boroditsky L. 2002. As time goes by: Evidence for two systems in processing space > time metaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes17537565.

Hoff H. & Pötzl O. 1934. Über eine Zeitrafferwirkung bei homonymer linksseitiger Hemianopsie. Zeitschr. ges. Neurol. Psychiat. 151599.

James W. 1890. The Principles of PsychologyNew York: Henry Holt.

Javadi A. M. & Aichelburg C. 2012. When time and numerosity interfere: the longer the more, and the more the longer. PLoS ONE7 ( 7 ): e41496. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041496.

Johnson E. J. & Goldstein D. G. 2004. Defaults and donation decisions. Transplantation7817131716.

Krulwich R. 2010. “Why Does Time Fly By As You Get Older?” http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2010/02/01/122322542/why-does-time-fly-by-as-you-get-older.

Langacker R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar . Vol. 1 Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Langacker R. W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar . Vol. 2 Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Langacker R. W. 2007. Cognitive Grammar In Geeraerts D. and Cuyckens H. (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press421-462.

Langacker R. W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Langone J. 2000. The mystery of time: Humanity’s quest for order and measure. Washington, DC: National Geographic.

Loftus E. 1974. Reconstructing memory. The incredible eyewitness. Psychology Today8116119.

Loftus E. 1975. Leading questions and the eyewitness report Cognitive Psychology7560572.

Loftus E. & Palmer J. C. 1974. Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction: An Example of the Interaction Between Language and Memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior13585589.

Loftus E. & Zanni G. 1975. Eyewitness testimony: The influence of the wording of a question. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society58688.

Lykken D. T. 1998. A tremor in the blood: uses and abuses of the lie detector. New York: Plenum Trade.

Matlock T. 2004. Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory and Cognition32 ( 8 ) 13891400.

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 Cognition2412111223.

Mischel W. Shoda Y. & Rodriguez M. I. 1989. Delay of gratification in children. Science244933938.

Núñez R. & Sweetser E. 2006. With the Future Behind Them: Convergent Evidence From Aymara Language and Gesture in the Crosslinguistic Comparison of Spatial Construals of Time. Cognitive Science30 ( 3 ) 401450.

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 Symbol21133146.

Oliveri M. Vicario C. M. Salerno S. Koch G. Turriziani P. Mangano R. Chillemi G. & Caltagirone C. 2008. Perceiving numbers alters time perception. Neuroscience Letters438: 3308311.

Ornstein R. 1969/1997. On the experience of time. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Pariyadath V. & Eagleman D. M. 2007. The effect of predictability on subjective duration. PLoS One2 ( 11 ):.

Pariyadath V. & Eagleman D. M. 2008. Brief subjective durations contract with repetition. Journal of Vision8(16):16

Radden G. 2003. The Metaphor TIME AS SPACE across Languages. In N. Baumgarten C. Böttger M. Motz J. Probst (eds.) Übersetzen Interkulturelle Kommunikation Spracherwerb und Sprachvermittlung – das Leben mit mehreren Sprachen. Festschrift für Juliane House zum 60. Geburtstag. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht8(2/3) 226239.

Segalowitz N. 2010. The cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge.

Sporer S. L. 1997. The less traveled road to truth: Verbal cues in deception detection in accounts of fabricated and self-experienced events. Applied Cognitive Psychology11373397.

Talmy L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1 Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Tse P. U. Intriligator J. Rivest J. & Cavanagh P. 2004. Attention and the subjective expansion of time. Perception & Psychophysics6611711189.

Tversky A. & Kahneman D. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science211453458.

Vrij A. Edward K. Roberts K. P. & Bull R. 2000. Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behaviour. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior24: 4239263.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 40 40 8
Full Text Views 91 91 72
PDF Downloads 3 3 1
EPUB Downloads 2 2 0