1

Spatio-Temporal Metaphors and Time Estimation

Panos Athanasopoulos(University of Reading)

p.athanasopoulos@reading.ac.uk

Collaborators:Emanuel Bylund (Stockholm University)Alina Schartner (Newcastle UniversityIfigeneia Athanasiadou (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki)Trolle Carlsson (Stockholm University)Tin Carlsson (Stockholm University)

2

Do speakers of different languages think differently?

3

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

“The linguistic relativity principle…means, in informal terms, that users of markedly different grammars are pointed by their grammars toward different types of observations and different evaluations of externally similar acts of observation, and hence are not equivalent as observers but must arrive at somewhat different views of the world.”

• Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897-1941)

4

“No one is really sure how Whorf came up with his outlandish claims”

Steven Pinker

“utterly boring, even if true” Geoffrey Pullum

“Language infects and inflects our thought at every level. The structures of grammar enforce a discipline on our habits of thought”

Daniel Dennett

5

Modern ‘neo-Whorfian’ approaches• Evidence for Linguistic Relativity- colour (Athanasopoulos et al., 2010; Gilbert, et al., 2006; Kay &

Kempton, 1984; Roberson, Davies & Davidoff, 2000)- number (Casasanto, 2005; Frank, et al, 2008; Gordon, 2004;

Pica, Lemer, Izard, & Dehaene, 2004; Spelke & Tsivkin, 2001) - motion (Athanasopoulos & Bylund, 2013; Gennari et al., 2002;

Papafragou & Selimis, 2010)- space (Levinson, 1996; Levinson et al., 2002; Li & Gleitman,

2002; Majid et al., 2004)- time (Boroditsky, 2001, 2008; Chen, 2007; January & Kako,

2007; Miles et al., 2012; Núñez & Sweetser, 2006)

6

• “a concept around which our whole existence revolves“• “a system to sequence events”

etc.

Time

7

• Crosslinguistic differences in the encoding of time• Grammatical (e.g., tense, aspect) and lexical (e.g.,

adverbials) devices

• Focus of today’s talk: Time metaphorsOutline:- Spatio-temporal metaphors- Crosslinguistic differences in time perception- The conditions of such differences- Time perception in bilingual speakers

Time as an abstract concept

8

Talking about the time that is yet to happen…

Swedish:framtid (‘front time’)ie ahead of us, to come

FUTURE

PAST

9

• Commonality of Swedish and Aymara: Succession on horizontal axis

Talking about the time that is yet to happen…

PAST

FUTURE

Aymara:qhipuru(‘behind time’)ie can’t be seen, unknown

10

• Chinese uses vertical metaphors in addition to horizontal metaphors

Talking about the time that is yet to happen… PAST

Chinese:shàng (‘up’)earlier, pastxià (‘down’) later, future;

FUTURE

11

• Commonality between these ways of talking about time: Spatial reference”A long rope””A long meeting””They moved the car forward two meters””They moved the meeting forward two hours”

(e.g., Lakoff & Johnson, 1980)

Talking about time…

Source domain:SPACE(concrete)

Target domain:TIME(abstract)

12

• Different types of spatio-temporal metaphors are used to talk about duration:English:Waiting for a long timelong night

long partyGreek:perimeno poli (’much’) oramegali (’big’) nychta

parti pou kratise poly [’party that lasted much’] Distance (Germanic languages); Quantity (Spanish, Greek)

Talking about time…

Duration=

Distance

Duration=

Quantity

13

Talking about time…

Black bars indicate the proportion of Google ‘hits’ for expressions meaning long time, and white bars for expressions meaning much time in English and Greek.

Casasanto, et al in prep

14

• What are the implications of these linguistic encodings of time?

• Do we think of time in terms of space?

• If so, do speakers with different spatial time metaphors think differently about time?

Talking about time…Thinking about time…

15

• What are the effects of these linguistic encodings on time perception?

• One way of investigating this is to have speakers of these languages looking at animations that depict different symbolic figures, and estimate their duration (Casasanto et al., 2004; 2005; 2008; 2013)

Thinking about time… Duration

16

line = distance

17

18

container = quantity

19

20

• In the test, the participant is given two different kinds of information:1) temporal information (the duration of the stimulus)2) spatial information (the length/growth of the stimulus)

• If the spatial metaphors that we use to talk about time actually influence our thinking about time, then we would expect an effect of spatial information on time perception

Thinking about time… Duration

21

A

22

B

23

A

24

B

25

• Speakers of languages with length metaphors would be influenced by line length when estimating the duration of line animations, i.e:They would tend to think that longer lines have a longer duration

• In contrast, speakers of quantity metaphor languages would be influenced by the degree to which the containers are filled, i.e:They would think that the more a container is filled the more time has passed

Thinking about time… Duration

26

Experimental design

Two measures are calculated:

1) Accuracy of duration estimation 2) Spatial interference

27

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 5501000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Estimated duration – Line/Filling container growth

slope = 0

Spatial interference

Length/Growth (pixels)

Estim

ated

dur

ation

(ms)

28

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 5502000

2200

2400

2600

2800

3000

3200

Estimated duration – Line/Filling container growth

slope = 1.39

Spatial interference

Length/Growth (pixels)

Estim

ated

dur

ation

(ms)

29

• Speakers of English and Indonesian (distance languages)

• Speakers of Greek and Spanish (quantity languages)

Casasanto (2005, 2008, 2013)

30

• Crosslinguistic differences in spatial interference in the line task:

• Crosslinguistic differences in spatial interference in the container task:

Casasanto (2005, 2008, 2013)

English Indonesian Greek Spanish

Slope 1.49 1.40 .47 .13

English Indonesian Greek Spanish

Slope .18 .51 1.24 1.16

31

• Speakers of English and Indonesian were influenced by line distance when estimating time, but not by filling container growth

• The opposite pattern was found for speakers of Greek and Spanish

• These findings seem to indicate that time perception indeed differs across language groups, and it does so in a way that corresponds to spatiotemporal metaphors for duration

Casasanto (2005, 2008, 2013)

32

• In Casasanto et al. (2005, 2008, 2013), lines and containers were preceded by a prompt that indicated the task, i.e.

TIME

DISTANCE

The conditions of language-specificity

• Bylund & Athanasopoulos (in prep) removed the linguistic label of the prompt, leaving only the symbol

33

• Spatial interference, containers [+ linguistic label]

• Spatial interference, containers [– linguistic label]

Bylund & Athanasopoulos (in prep)

Spanish Swedish

Slope 1.42 .54

Spanish Swedish

Slope .96 .65

p < .05

p > .1

34

• Spatial interference, lines [+ linguistic label]

• Spatial interference, lines [– linguistic label]

Bylund & Athanasopoulos (in prep)

Spanish Swedish

Slope .70 1.21

Spanish Swedish

Slope .81 1.03

p < .05

p > .1

35

• Crosslinguistic differences in spatial interference are reduced in the [– linguistic label] condition

• The linguistic prompts trigger a set of perceptual distinctions learnt through and associated with language, thus leading the individual to attend to perceptual attributes in a language-specific way

Bylund & Athanasopoulos (in prep)

36

• Associative learning: when people use a linguistic metaphor for time, they activate the corresponding mental metaphor. In doing so, they would strengthen this particular associative mapping.

• As people use the dominant and less-dominant metaphors in their language according to their distributional statistics, they activate one mental metaphor more frequently than the other(s).

• This should strengthen one mental metaphor, and at the same time weaken the alternative mapping(s).

Accounting for the influence of metaphor on thought

37

• If specific space-time associations are strengthened by frequency of use, then bilinguals might be influenced by the language they use most often

Does language shape the way we think?

38

• L1 Spanish – L2 Swedish adult bilinguals, living in SwedenAge of L2 acquisition: 11.5 (7.8) yearsFrequency of L1 use: 21.8 % weeklyFrequency of L2 use: 78.2% weeklyLength of residence: 20.4 (6.1) years

• Experimental conditions: Lines Linguistic labels (Swedish: tid)

Bylund & Athanasopoulos (in prep)

39

• Spatial interference, lines

• Spatial interference, lines

Bylund & Athanasopoulos (in prep)

Spanish-Swedish bilinguals

Swedish mono

Slope .92 1.21

Bilinguals: Spanish users

Bilinguals: Swedish users

Swedish mono

Slope .65 1.18 1.21

p < .05

p > .1p < .05

40

• Frequency of language use affects spatial interference

• Spatial interference in bilinguals using Spanish more frequently converges with Spanish patterns (i.e., L1 patterns)

• Spatial interference in bilinguals using Swedish more frequently converges with Swedish patterns (i.e., L2 patterns)

• How early in language development do mental space-time associations appear? Frequency of exposure? Learning context?

Summary

41

Linguistic relativity:• People who talk about time differently also think about it

differently• What is the extent of the influence of linguistic structure on

cognitive processes, and what conditions suppress or promote this influence?

Conceptual representation• Learning and using a specific language can shape mental

representations by strengthening specific space-time associations

Language and Thought

42

Thank you!

43

• Spatial interference, containers

• Spatial interference, containers

Bylund & Athanasopoulos (in prep)

Spanish-Swedish bilinguals

Swedish mono

r2 .61 .38

Slope .68 .54

Late bilinguals Early bilinguals Swedish mono

r2 .88 .45 .38

Slope 1.01 .44 .54

p < .05

p > .1p < .05

44

Modern ‘neo-Whorfian’ approaches

Linguistic diversity: Languages encode reality in different ways

Linguistic relativity: Speakers of different languages think and perceive the world differently

Thinking for Speaking: Speakers structure information differently when they prepare content for speech

Indexed by verbal and co-verbal behaviour Indexed by non-verbal cognitive behaviour