Edited by: Asifa Majid, Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands
Reviewed by: Chris Sinha, Lund University, Sweden; Eef Ameel, Leuven University, Belgium
*Correspondence: Vicky Tzuyin Lai, Neurobiology of Language Department, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, Wundtlaan 1, 6525 XD Nijmegen, Netherlands. e-mail:
This article was submitted to Frontiers in Cultural Psychology, a specialty of Frontiers in Psychology.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in other forums, provided the original authors and source are credited and subject to any copyright notices concerning any third-party graphics etc.
In this paper we examine whether experience with spatial metaphors for time has an influence on people’s representation of time. In particular we ask whether spatio-temporal metaphors can have both chronic and immediate effects on temporal thinking. In Study 1, we examine the prevalence of ego-moving representations for time in Mandarin speakers, English speakers, and Mandarin-English (ME) bilinguals. As predicted by observations in linguistic analyses, we find that Mandarin speakers are less likely to take an ego-moving perspective than are English speakers. Further, we find that ME bilinguals tested in English are less likely to take an ego-moving perspective than are English monolinguals (an effect of L1 on meaning-making in L2), and also that ME bilinguals tested in Mandarin are more likely to take an ego-moving perspective than are Mandarin monolinguals (an effect of L2 on meaning-making in L1). These findings demonstrate that habits of metaphor use in one language can influence temporal reasoning in another language, suggesting the metaphors can have a chronic effect on patterns in thought. In Study 2 we test Mandarin speakers using either horizontal or vertical metaphors in the immediate context of the task. We find that Mandarin speakers are more likely to construct front-back representations of time when understanding front-back metaphors, and more likely to construct up-down representations of time when understanding up-down metaphors. These findings demonstrate that spatio-temporal metaphors can also have an immediate influence on temporal reasoning. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that the metaphors we use to talk about time have both immediate and long-term consequences for how we conceptualize and reason about this fundamental domain of experience.
To represent time, many cultures around the world rely on space. People spatialize time in cultural artifacts like graphs, time-lines, orthography, clocks, sundials, hourglasses, and calendars. We gesture temporal relations, and rely heavily on spatial words (e.g.,
However, the particular ways that time is spatialized differ across languages and cultures. Research done around the world has uncovered dramatic variability in representations of time across cultures and groups. Several aspects of linguistic, cultural, and personal experience appear to shape people’s temporal reasoning, such as: (1) the pattern of spatial metaphors that people use to talk about time (Boroditsky,
In this paper we focus on the role that spatial metaphors play in constructing representations of time across languages, with a particular focus on English and Mandarin. When talking about time in English, we can look
In Study 1, we test whether habits of metaphor use in one language can influence temporal reasoning in another language. Such a finding would suggest that patterns in metaphor use can have chronic effects on patterns in thought. We measure the relative cognitive salience of ego-moving and time-moving conceptualizations for English and Mandarin speakers, and examine whether and how Mandarin-English (ME) bilinguals integrate the patterns from their two languages into their temporal thinking.
In Study 2 we examine whether using different metaphors within a language invites different representations of time in-the-moment. Specifically, we ask whether Mandarin speakers flexibly re-organize time along the front-back or up-down axis depending on whether they are processing front-back or up-down metaphors for time.
In English, two dominant spatial metaphors are used to sequence events in time (McTaggart,
(1) | a. We are approaching the deadline. |
b. The deadline is approaching. |
Time-moving and ego-moving metaphors are also available in Mandarin (Table
(1) | (2) | |||||||||||
qi-mo-kao | kuai | dao | le | kuai | dao | qi-mo-kao | le | |||||
final-exam | fast | arrive | particle-le | fast | arrive | final-exam | particle-le | |||||
“The finals are fast approaching.” | “(Pro-drop we) are fast approaching the finals.” | |||||||||||
(3) | (4) | |||||||||||
er-shi-yi | shi-ji | yi-jing | dao-lai | wo-men | yi-jing | jin-ru | er-shi-yi | shi-ji | ||||
twenty-one | century | already | come | we | already | enter | twenty-one century | |||||
“The 21st century has come.” | “We have entered the 21st century” | |||||||||||
(5) | (6) | |||||||||||
chun-jia | guo | le | ta cai | jing-ru | san-shi | |||||||
spring-vacation | pass | aspectual-le | he just | enter | three-ten | |||||||
“The spring break has passed.” | “He just entered the thirties.” | |||||||||||
(7a) | (7b) |
(7c) |
||||||||||
yi-qian | qian-tian | qian-nian | ||||||||||
to-front | front day | front-year | ||||||||||
“before” | “the day before yesterday” | “the year before last year” | ||||||||||
(8a) | (8b) |
(8c) |
||||||||||
yi-hou | hou-tian | hou-nian | ||||||||||
to-back | back day | back year | ||||||||||
“after” | “the day after tomorrow” | “the year after the next year” | ||||||||||
(9) | ||||||||||||
qian | bu | jian | gu-ren, | hou | bu | jian | lai-zhe | |||||
front | no | see | ancient-person | back | no | see | come-person | |||||
“(Pronoun-drop I) can’t see any predecessor before me, or any new comer behind me” | ||||||||||||
(10a) | (10b) |
(10c) |
||||||||||
qian-tu | qian-cheng | qian-jing | ||||||||||
front-path | front-journey | front-view | ||||||||||
“future” | “future” | “outlook” | ||||||||||
(11a) | (11b) |
(11c) |
(11d) |
(11e) |
||||||||
shang yi miao | shang li-bai | shang ge yue | shang yi nian | shang shi-ji | ||||||||
up one second | up week | up classifier-ge month | up one year | up century | ||||||||
“last second” | “last week” | “last month” | “last month” | “last century” | ||||||||
(12a) | (12b) |
(12c) |
(12d) |
(12e) |
||||||||
xia yi miao | xia li-bai | xia ge yue | xia yi nian | xia shi-ji | ||||||||
down one second | down week | down classifier-ge month | down one year | down century | ||||||||
“next second” | “next week” | “next month” | “next month” | “next century” |
The first goal of our paper is to test empirically whether Mandarin speakers are less likely to assume the ego-moving perspective on time than are English speakers, and whether and how bilinguals exposed to both languages may assimilate the patterns of both languages into their temporal thinking.
We tested Mandarin and English monolinguals and ME bilinguals (some tested in English, and some in Mandarin) on the same questions. Testing bilinguals allows us to ask two questions: (1) whether knowing Mandarin affects how ME bilinguals understand spatio-temporal metaphors in English, and (2) whether learning English affects how ME bilinguals understand spatio-temporal metaphors in Mandarin. That is, does L1 have an effect on how people conduct meaning-making in L2, and vice versa can L2 have an effect on how people conduct meaning-making in L1?
Participants gave informed consent and were tested on one of two questions about time. One set of participants was tested on a question about rescheduling a meeting. The other set was tested on a question about resetting a clock. After the participants completed the study, they reported their language proficiency by filling out a language background questionnaire, listing the languages they speak, and indicating how proficient they are in each (on a scale of 1 to 5; with a score of 0 assigned to languages that participants reported not speaking at all). A number of our participants reported fluency in Cantonese as well as Mandarin. In order to focus our studies on Mandarin, we excluded all participants with a fluency in Cantonese greater than 0.
One hundred and seventy two people were included in this part of the study, including 66 native English speakers residing in the US (English proficiency = 5, Mandarin proficiency = 0, mean age = 19.9), 51 native Mandarin speakers residing in Taiwan (English proficiency = 1.0, Mandarin proficiency = 5.0, mean age = 22.5), and 55 ME bilinguals residing in the US (English proficiency = 4.02, Mandarin proficiency = 4.95, mean age = 24.0).
Ninety-one people participated in this part of the study, including 28 native English speakers residing in the US (English proficiency = 5, Mandarin proficiency = 0, mean age = 27.3), 24 native Mandarin speakers residing in Taiwan (English proficiency = 1.71, Mandarin proficiency = 5.00, mean age = 20.1), and 39 ME bilinguals residing in the US (English proficiency = 4.24, Mandarin proficiency = 4.81, mean age = 25.9).
The question administered to this group is about moving a meeting (Table
Next Wednesday’s meeting has been moved forward two days. What day is the meeting now that it has been rescheduled? | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Xia | zhou-san-de | hui-yi | yao | wang | qian | nuo | liang-tian. |
down | Wednesday’s | meeting | will | toward | front | move | two days. |
qing | wen | zhe-ge | yi-si | shi | xia | zhou-ji | kai-hui? |
Please | ask | this | meaning | is | down | week which | meet? |
The native Mandarin-speaking group was tested in Mandarin. The native English and the ME bilingual groups were tested in English. This allows us to test for the effect of L1 on meaning-making in L2, by comparing English monolinguals and ME bilinguals on the same task, tested using the very same materials in English.
The question administered to this group is about changing the time on a clock (Table
Suppose the clock says it is 1pm now. You need to move it one hour forward. What time will it be adjusted to? | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
jia-she | zhe-ge | shi-zhong | xian-shi | xian-zai | shi | xia-wu | yi-dian, | ||
suppose | this | clock | show | now | is | afternoon | one, | ||
Qing | ni | ba | ta | wang | qian | tiao | yi | ge | xiao-shi |
please | you | make | it | toward | forward | adjust | one | classifier-ge | hour. |
qing | wen | tiao | hao | ying-gai | shi | ji | dian? | ||
Please | ask | adjust | ready | should | is | which | hour? |
Results are summarized in Figure
When asked the question about next Wednesday’s meeting, English monolinguals were more likely to take the ego-moving perspective and say that the meeting moved to Friday than were ME bilinguals, who were in turn more likely to say Friday than were Mandarin monolinguals (68.2, 38.2, and 0% said Friday respectively). Each group’s pattern of responses differed significantly from the others (English monolinguals vs. ME bilinguals, χ2 = (1,
We further interrogated the data from the English monolinguals and the ME bilinguals in a logistic regression, with Mandarin Proficiency as a predictor variable. We found that Mandarin proficiency predicted participants’ time interpretation, β = −0.250, Wald = 10.427,
When asked the question about resetting the clock, English monolinguals were again more likely to take an ego-moving perspective (and say that the clock should be reset to 2:00 p.m.) than were ME bilinguals, who were in turn more likely to do so than were Mandarin monolinguals (100.0, 41.0, and 12.5% resetting to 2:00 p.m. respectively). Each group’s pattern of responses differed significantly from the others [English monolinguals vs. ME bilinguals, χ2 = (1,
We further interrogated the data from the Mandarin monolinguals and the ME bilinguals in a logistic regression, with English Proficiency as a predictor variable. We found that English proficiency predicted participants’ time interpretation, β = 0.609, Wald = 6.982,
One potential concern is that ME bilinguals included in this study differed from the Mandarin monolinguals not only in that the bilinguals had higher proficiency in English, but also in the Test location. The bilinguals were tested in the US whereas the Mandarin monolinguals were tested in Taiwan. Indeed, in a logistic regression conducted on data from Mandarin monolinguals and ME bilinguals, Test location was a significant predictor of people’s time perspective, β = 1.583, Wald = 5.146,
To be able to separate out the influence of English proficiency from that of Test location, we further interrogated the data from the ME bilinguals and Mandarin monolinguals in a set of partial correlation analyses. These analyses were designed to examine whether the testing location (Taiwan vs. US) rather than English proficiency may have been the driving force behind the differences between the two groups of Mandarin speakers in answering the clock question. When Test location and Mandarin proficiency were controlled for, English proficiency still predicted participants’ answers to the clock question,
In this study we tested the relative cognitive salience of ego-moving and time-moving conceptualizations for English and Mandarin speakers. We asked English and Mandarin speakers what it would mean to move a meeting
Of course, because the two groups were tested on questions formulated in different languages, it is difficult to know how much of the difference was driven by more general patterns in conceptualization of time in the two groups, and how much might be attributable to unavoidable differences in how the specific questions were formulated in the two languages.
To overcome this difficulty we tested ME bilinguals in English and compared their results to those of English monolinguals. Testing English monolinguals and ME bilinguals on exactly the same question formulated in English allowed us to test whether prior experience speaking Mandarin pre-disposes the ME bilinguals to interpret the English formulation in a more time-moving fashion than do English monolinguals. Indeed, we find that ME bilinguals are less likely to take an ego-moving perspective when understanding English temporal metaphors than are English monolinguals, even when both groups are tested on the identical question in English. This finding reveals how patterns in one’s native language can shade the construction of meaning in a second language.
Taking another approach to this question, we tested ME bilinguals in Mandarin and compared their results to those of Mandarin monolinguals. Testing Mandarin monolinguals and ME bilinguals on exactly the same question formulated in Mandarin allowed us to test whether experience speaking English pre-disposes the ME bilinguals to interpret the Mandarin formulation in a more ego-moving fashion than do Mandarin monolinguals. Indeed, we find that ME bilinguals are more likely to take an ego-moving perspective when understanding Mandarin temporal metaphors than are Mandarin monolinguals, even when both groups are tested on the identical question in Mandarin. This finding reveals how patterns in one’s second language can shade the construction of meaning in one’s native language.
It appears that for bilinguals, both languages hold sway on thinking. That is, there are influences of the first language on conceptualizing time in the second language, and of the second language on conceptualizing time in the first language (see also Brown and Gullberg,
In future studies, it would be interesting to compare data from ME bilinguals tested either in English or in Mandarin on the same question, and to compare these results to the two groups of monolinguals. These comparisons would allow us to measure both the contribution of having learned another language (in terms of how much bilinguals deviate from monolinguals of either language) and the contribution of the current linguistic context (in terms of how much bilinguals’ responses differ when tested in Mandarin as opposed to English).
In addition to using horizontal terms to talk about time, Mandarin speakers also frequently use vertical terms like
(2) | a. | ||||
shang | yi | ge | li-bai | ||
up | one | classifier-ge | week | ||
“Last week” | |||||
b. | |||||
qian | yi | ge | li-bai | ||
front | one | classifier-ge | week | ||
“Last week” | |||||
c. | |||||
xia | yi | ge | li-bai | ||
down | one | classifier-ge | week | ||
“Next week” | |||||
d. | |||||
hou | yi | ge | li-bai | ||
back | one | classifier-ge | week | ||
“Next week” |
Previous work has examined whether differences in the background frequency of up-down time metaphors between English and Mandarin predict how English and Mandarin speakers tend to spatialize time. The findings across a variety of linguistic and non-linguistic paradigms suggest that Mandarin speakers are more likely to spatialize time vertically than are English speakers (Boroditsky et al.,
In this section we examine whether metaphor use plays a causal in-the-moment role in how people construct representations of time. Specifically, we ask whether Mandarin speakers flexibly re-organize time along the front-back or up-down axis depending on whether they are processing front-back or up-down metaphors for time. This allows us to test whether Mandarin speakers are sensitive to the spatial meaning in up-down and front-back temporal metaphors as they process them in natural language. If the spatio-temporal metaphors are psychologically dead and no longer carry a spatial meaning, then one might not expect any consequences for how people spatialize time in-the-moment. However, if processing these highly conventionalized spatio-temporal metaphors evokes spatial meaning in people’s minds, then we may see a difference in how Mandarin speakers spatialize time when processing front-back vs. up-down metaphors.
Ninety-eight ME bilinguals participated in the study, including 66 tested in California [mean age = 36.6; Mean Mandarin proficiency = 4.48 (self-reported on a scale of 1 to 5), Mean English proficiency = 4.01] and 32 tested in Taiwan (mean age = 24.8; Mean Mandarin proficiency = 5.00, Mean English proficiency = 2.71).
We followed the three-dimensional pointing paradigm used in Fuhrman and Boroditsky (
jia-she | zhe-li | shi | zhe | ge | li-bai | ||
suppose | this here | is | this | classifier-ge | week | ||
Ni | ren-wei | qian | yi | ge | li-bai | zai | na-li? |
you | think | front | one | classifier-ge | week | locate | where? |
Hou | yi | ge | li-bai | zai | nali? | ||
Back | one | classifier-ge | week | locate | where? | ||
jia-she | zheli | shi | zhe | ge | yue | ||
suppose | this here | is | this | classifier-ge | month | ||
ni | ren-wei | shang | ge | yue | zai | na-li? | |
you | think | up | classifier-ge | month | locate | where? | |
xia | ge | yue | zai | na-li? | |||
down | classifier-ge | month | locate | where? |
All participants were tested in Mandarin by a native Mandarin-speaking experimenter. After the pointing task, participants filled out a language background questionnaire, listing the languages they speak, and how proficient they are in those languages on a scale from 1 to 5.
Data were coded using the same criteria used in Fuhrman and Boroditsky (
Results are summarized in Figure
Left-right | Up-down | Front-back | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Mandarin fluency (1–5) | beta | −0.10 | 0.08 | 0.04 |
t | −1.42 | 1.04 | 0.60 | |
p | 0.16 | 0.30 | 0.55 | |
Test location (California or Taiwan) | beta | −0.22 | 0.08 | 0.19 |
t | *−2.96* | 1.09 | *2.51* | |
p | 0.00 | 0.28 | 0.01 | |
Metaphor (up-down or front-back) | beta | 0.10 | −0.26 | 0.17 |
t | 1.45 | *−3.66* | *2.39* | |
p | 0.15 | 0.00 | 0.02 | |
ANOVA | F | *5.58* | *5.38* | *5.03* |
p | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
Adjusted R-squared | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.06 |
In sum, the metaphors mattered. Participants arranged time differently when prompted with front-back metaphors than when prompted with up-down metaphors in Mandarin. In particular, people were twice as likely to arrange time vertically when prompted with up-down metaphors (40%) as when prompted with front-back metaphors (19%), standardized β = −0.255,
In addition, the test location mattered. Participants tested in California were more likely to use the left-right axis than those tested in Taiwan (61 and 36%, respectively; β = −0.218,
The factor of Mandarin proficiency did not predict the participants’ preference for axis. This is likely because all of the participants included in this study were very proficient in Mandarin.
In this study we examined whether using different metaphors influences people’s representations of time in-the-moment. We found that indeed, Mandarin speakers were more likely to lay out time along the front-back axis when understanding front-back metaphors and more likely to lay out time vertically when understanding up-down metaphors
The pattern of results we observe along the front-back axis replicates previous such patterns observed with Mandarin speakers on this task. For example, Fuhrman et al. (
What might be responsible for this flexibility in temporal arrangements along the front-back among the Mandarin speakers? One possibility suggested in the literature is that while in English the observer is always facing the future, in Mandarin the observer may sometimes be facing the past. For example, Lai (
These analyses are based on the interpretation of linguistic examples, however alternative interpretations of the examples are also possible. Consider Example 7 in Table
Mandarin speakers’ patterns of responses on the front-back axis in our pointing task suggest that Mandarin speakers do spontaneously conceptualize time both with the past further in front of the body and with the future further in front of the body. However, since most participants created their full temporal arrangements in the space in front of their bodies (placing events forward or back with respect to the reference point, but rarely pointing behind the body), results from a different task would be necessary to see if the future is indeed sometimes seen as behind one’s back.
In this paper we have examined both chronic and in-the-moment consequences of metaphor use in constructing people’s representations of time.
In Study 1 we compared temporal reasoning in three groups with different histories of linguistic experience with time metaphors: English monolinguals, Mandarin monolinguals, and ME bilinguals. We find that English and Mandarin monolinguals indeed tend to take different perspectives on time, with Mandarin speakers more likely to take the time-moving perspective, consistent with the linguistic analyses of metaphor use in the two languages. Further, we find that ME bilinguals differ from both groups of monolinguals. When understanding time metaphors in English, ME bilinguals are more likely to adopt the time-moving perspective than are English monolinguals. When understanding time metaphors in Mandarin, ME bilinguals are less likely to adopt the time-moving perspective than are Mandarin monolinguals. That is, there are both effects of L1 on meaning-making in L2, and the reverse, effects of L2 on meaning-making in L1.
In Study 2, we test whether using different spatio-temporal metaphors can in-the-moment give rise to different representations of time. We find that Mandarin speakers are more likely to construct front-back representations of time when understanding front-back metaphors, and more likely to construct up-down representations of time when understanding up-down metaphors.
Taken together, these findings demonstrate that the metaphors we use to talk about time have both immediate and long-term consequences for how we conceptualize and reason about this fundamental domain of experience. How people conceptualize time appears to depend on how the languages they speak tend to talk about time, and also on the particular metaphors being used to talk about time in-the-moment.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
We thank Yao Yao, Eva Chen, Kelly McCormick, and Heidi Jiang for help with data collection.
1In this study, we used contrasting conventional spatial metaphors in Mandarin as part of the instructions and observed that these different metaphors generated different behavior. One interpretation of these results is that processing and understanding these conventional metaphors naturally lead participants to generate different spatial representations of time. Another possibility is that participants perceived the metaphors as explicit instructions about how to spatialize time for the purpose of the experiment, and so responded accordingly. There are a number of reasons that suggest this was not the case. First, the metaphors used in the study are canonical expressions in Mandarin, and no non-spatial equivalents exist. Because the design is between-subjects, the participants had no reason to suspect these conventional natural language metaphors as an experimental manipulation. Further, the large number of responses on the left-right axis suggests that participants did not take the metaphors used in the study to be explicit instructions. The metaphors used only front/back or up/down language and yet we observed a large proportion of responses on the left/right axis. Nonetheless this alternative take remains an important possibility. Studies that rely on less explicit measures of behavior will be necessary to further tease apart these alternative explanations.