Can co-speech gestures alone carry the mental time line?

Winter, Bodo; Duffy, Sarah E.

doi:10.1037/xlm0000836

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As observed by both Winter and Duffy (2020) and Medimorec (2022) , this contextual factor also influences metaphorical temporal perspective, with English speakers from the US responding Monday more frequently when questioned on a Monday, and Friday more frequently when questioned on a Friday. Probing this effect further, Winter and Duffy (2020) found that asking the Next Wednesday’s meeting question on days closer to Monday and Friday results in progressively more Monday or Friday responses, respectively. While one possible explanation for these effects is priming—knowing that it is a Monday may help Monday to spring to mind more easily ( cf.…”

Section: The Contextualized Individualmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…Based on these findings, Boroditsky and Ramscar (2002 , cf ., Boroditsky, 2000) argued that people’s thinking about time is closely linked to their spatial experiences, such that engaging in thought about motion in space can influence how people reason about time. Subsequent research conducted in a range of settings has provided further support for this conclusion, with demonstrations that non-deictic spatial schemas ( Kranjec, 2006 ; Núñez et al, 2006 ), abstract spatial motion schemas ( Matlock et al, 2011 ), fictive motion schemas ( Matlock et al, 2005 ; Ramscar et al, 2010 ), and gesture ( Jamalian and Tversky, 2012 ; Lewis and Stickles, 2017 ; Winter and Duffy, 2020 )—all of which draw upon spatial thinking—may similarly influence how people think about time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

To each their own: a review of individual differences and metaphorical perspectives on time

Feist¹,

Duffy²

2023

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do people talk—and potentially think—about abstract concepts? Supported by abundant linguistic evidence, Conceptual Metaphor Theory posits that people draw upon concrete concepts to structure abstract ones via metaphorical connections. Often, the source domain for a metaphor draws upon embodied physical experience, as in the time is space system, whereby representations in the domain of time are thought to arise from experiences of navigating through, orienting within, and observing motion in space. In recent years, psychological evidence has suggested that the connections between space and time are indeed conceptual; however, many gaps in our understanding of the workings of metaphor remain. Notably, until recently, the unique variations in the ways in which people experience metaphor have been largely overlooked, with much research falling prey to what Dąbrowska has identified as one of the ‘deadly sins’ of cognitive linguistics: to ignore individual differences. By focusing on two widely studied metaphors for time, Moving Time and Moving Ego, this review article shines a spotlight on the varied ways in which people draw on their embodied and enculturated experiences, along with ‘human experience’ on an individual level and the contexts within which they use metaphor. In doing so, it highlights the importance for metaphoric conceptualization of variation across languages, across contexts, and across individuals, suggesting that while the use and interpretation of metaphor may begin with cross-domain connections, they are but part of the story.

show abstract

Section: The Contextualized Individualmentioning

confidence: 67%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

To each their own: a review of individual differences and metaphorical perspectives on time

Feist¹,

Duffy²

2023

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A Time‐Reference‐Point gesture would be any gesture showing the location of a temporal event with respect to another event. To clarify, based on our temporal scenarios and following Winter and Duffy (2020), we coded the away‐from‐the‐body gestures as Moving‐Ego gestures and toward‐the‐body gestures as Moving‐Time gestures. This coding was both representative of the canonical Moving‐Ego and Moving‐Time perspectives and congruent with our scenarios’ directions.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The participants mostly responded Friday after seeing away‐from‐the‐body gestures representing the Moving‐Ego perspective and Monday after seeing toward‐the‐body gestures representing the Moving‐Time perspective. In a similar study, Winter and Duffy (2020) primed their participants with speech–gesture instances and asked them the “next Wednesday” question. Specifically, participants saw a video of a person saying that the next Wednesday's meeting has been moved forward/backward 2 days while moving their hand toward or away from their body.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal Gestures in Different Temporal Perspectives

Akbuğa,

Göksun

2024

Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Temporal perspectives allow us to place ourselves and temporal events on a timeline, making it easier to conceptualize time. This study investigates how we take different temporal perspectives in our temporal gestures. We asked participants (n = 36) to retell temporal scenarios written in the Moving‐Ego, Moving‐Time, and Time‐Reference‐Point perspectives in spontaneous and encouraged gesture conditions. Participants took temporal perspectives mostly in similar ways regardless of the gesture condition. Perspective comparisons showed that temporal gestures of our participants resonated better with the Ego‐ (i.e., Moving‐Ego and Moving‐Time) versus Time‐Reference‐Point distinction instead of the classical Moving‐Ego versus Moving‐Time contrast. Specifically, participants mostly produced more Moving‐Ego and Time‐Reference‐Point gestures for the corresponding scenarios and speech; however, the Moving‐Time perspective was not adopted more than the others in any condition. Similarly, the Moving‐Time gestures did not favor an axis over the others, whereas Moving‐Ego gestures were mostly sagittal and Time‐Reference‐Point gestures were mostly lateral. These findings suggest that we incorporate temporal perspectives into our temporal gestures to a considerable extent; however, the classical Moving‐Ego and Moving‐Time classification may not hold for temporal gestures.

show abstract

“…Indeed, if the speaker uses such a forward gesture, the majority of people think the meeting is now on Friday. But this pattern reverses if the speaker gestures backward toward their torso, after which most people think the meeting has been moved to Monday (Jamalian and Tversky, 2012;Lewis and Stickles, 2017;Winter and Duffy, 2020).…”

Section: Emerging Meaning In Multimodal Messagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multimodality matters in numerical communication

Winter

Marghetis

2023

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern society depends on numerical information, which must be communicated accurately and effectively. Numerical communication is accomplished in different modalities—speech, writing, sign, gesture, graphs, and in naturally occurring settings it almost always involves more than one modality at once. Yet the modalities of numerical communication are often studied in isolation. Here we argue that, to understand and improve numerical communication, we must take seriously this multimodality. We first discuss each modality on its own terms, identifying their commonalities and differences. We then argue that numerical communication is shaped critically by interactions among modalities. We boil down these interactions to four types: one modality can amplify the message of another; it can direct attention to content from another modality (e.g., using a gesture to guide attention to a relevant aspect of a graph); it can explain another modality (e.g., verbally explaining the meaning of an axis in a graph); and it can reinterpret a modality (e.g., framing an upwards-oriented trend as a bad outcome). We conclude by discussing how a focus on multimodality raises entirely new research questions about numerical communication.

show abstract

Can co-speech gestures alone carry the mental time line?

Cited by 7 publications

References 69 publications

To each their own: a review of individual differences and metaphorical perspectives on time

To each their own: a review of individual differences and metaphorical perspectives on time

Temporal Gestures in Different Temporal Perspectives

Multimodality matters in numerical communication

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About