What factors influence the ways in which people resolve ambiguity? In English, two contrasting perspectives are implicit in deictic temporal expressions: the Moving Time metaphor conceptualizes time as moving forward towards the ego and the Moving Ego metaphor conceptualizes the ego as moving forward towards the future (Clark 1973). We examine the ambiguity arising from these two conceptualizations, claimed to be equally likely in a “neutral” context (Boroditsky and Ramscar 2002). Whereas previous studies have demonstrated that exposure to a spatial situation related to one interpretation may influence the resolution of the ambiguity (e.g. Boroditsky 2000; Nunez 2007), we focus on the lifestyle and personality factors of the participants as potential additional influences on ambiguity resolution in the interpretation of temporal metaphors. Experiment 1 asks whether lifestyle might influence an individual's approach to time and resulting resolution of temporal ambiguity, comparing preferred responses from two groups of participants with very different demands on the structuring of time: university students and administrators. We observed a difference between the two groups, with administrators more frequently adopting the Moving Time perspective and students, the Moving Ego perspective. Experiment 2 examines personality-related differences, focusing specifically on individual differences in procrastination (Lay 1986) and conscientiousness (John 1990). We observed a significant effect with participants who adopted the Moving Ego perspective reporting higher procrastination scores and lower conscientiousness scores than participants who adopted the Moving Time perspective. Experiment 3 investigates further personality-related differences, focusing specifically on individual differences in extroversion (John 1990). We observed a relationship between extroversion and disambiguation responses, with participants who adopted the Moving Ego perspective evidencing higher levels of extroversion. Taken together, the results from these three studies suggest that individual differences in lifestyle and personality may influence people's perspectives on the movement of events in time and their concomitant interpretation of temporally ambiguous utterances, precluding a universal “neutral” context within which language is interpreted.

In English, two deictic space-time metaphors are in common usage: the Moving Ego metaphor conceptualizes the ego as moving forward through time and the Moving Time metaphor conceptualizes time as moving forward toward the ego (Clark, 1973). Although earlier research investigating the psychological reality of these metaphors has typically examined spatial influences on temporal reasoning (e.g., Boroditsky & Ramscar, 2002), recent lines of research have extended beyond this, providing initial evidence that personality differences and emotional experiences may also influence how people reason about events in time (Duffy & Feist, 2014; Hauser, Carter, & Meier, 2009; Richmond, Wilson, & Zinken, 2012). In this article, we investigate whether these relationships have force in real life. Building on the effects of individual differences in self-reported conscientiousness and procrastination found by Duffy and Feist (2014), we examined whether, in addition to self-reported conscientiousness and procrastination, there is a relationship between conscientious and procrastinating behaviors and temporal perspective. We found that participants who adopted the Moving Time perspective were more likely to exhibit conscientious behaviors, while those who adopted the Moving Ego perspective were more likely to procrastinate, suggesting that the earlier effects reach beyond the laboratory.

What factors influence our understanding of metaphoric statements about time? By examining the interpretation of one such statement – namely, Next Wednesday’s meeting has been moved forward by two days – earlier research has demonstrated that people may draw on spatial perspectives, involving multiple spatially based temporal reference strategies, to interpret metaphoric statements about time (e.g. Boroditsky 2000; Kranjec 2006; McGlone and Harding 1998; Núñez et al. 2006). However, what is still missing is an understanding of the role of linguistic factors in the interpretation of temporal statements such as this one. In this paper, we examine the linguistic properties of this famous temporally ambiguous utterance, considered as an instantiation of a more schematic construction. In Experiment 1, we examine the roles of individual lexical items that are used in the utterance in order to better understand the interplay of lexical semantics and constructional meaning in the context of a metaphoric statement. Following up on prior suggestions in the literature, we ask whether the locus of the ambiguity is centred on the adverb, centred on the verb, or distributed across the utterance. The results suggest that the final interpretation results from an interplay of verb and adverb, suggesting a distributed temporal semantics analogous to the distributed semantics noted for the metaphoric source domain of space (Sinha and Kuteva 1995) and consistent with a constructional view of language (Goldberg 2003). In Experiment 2, we expand the linguistic factors under investigation to include voice and person. The findings suggest that grammatical person, but not grammatical voice, may also influence the interpretation of the Next Wednesday’s meeting metaphor. Taken together, the results of these two studies illuminate the interplay of lexical and constructional factors in the interpretation of temporal metaphors.

No 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.