Moving Forward in Space and Time: How Strong is the Conceptual Link between Spatial and Temporal Frames of Reference?

Abstract

People often use spatial vocabulary to describe temporal relations, and this increasingly has motivated attempts to map spatial frames of reference (FoRs) onto time. Recent research suggested that speech communities, which differ in how they conceptualize space, may also differ in how they conceptualize time and, more specifically, that the preferences for spatial FoRs should carry over to the domain of time. Here, we scrutinize this assumption (a) by reviewing data from recent studies on temporal references, (b) by comparing data we had collected in previous studies on preferences for spatial and temporal FoRs in four languages, (c) by analyzing new data from dynamic spatial tasks that resemble the temporal tasks more closely, and (d) by assessing the co-variation of individual preferences of English speakers across space and time. While the first set of data paints a mixed picture, the latter three do not support the assumption of a close link between referencing preferences across domains. We explore possible reasons for this lack of consistency and discuss implications for research on temporal references.

Temporal frames of reference in three Germanic languages: Individual consistency, interindividual consensus, and cross-linguistic variability

“…For the spatial domain, frame of reference preferences and their cross-linguistic variability have been a core topic of research (e.g., Bennardo, 2002;Hüther, Bentz, Spada, Bender, & Beller, 2013;Levinson & Wilkins, 2006;Majid, Bowerman, Kita, Haun, & Levinson, 2004;Senft, 1997), and these studies established that even in closely related languages preferences may differ considerably. Analogous investigations for the temporal domain were attempted only recently (e.g., Bender & Beller, 2014;Bender et al, 2005Bender et al, , 2010Bender, Rothe-Wulf, Hüther, & Beller, 2012;Boroditsky & Gaby, 2010;Brown, 2012;Le Guen & Pool Balam, 2012;Núñez et al, 2012;Núñez & Sweetser, 2006). In the following, we first outline our taxonomy of spatiotemporal frames of reference and provide a brief characterization of the languages under scrutiny, before presenting the two experiments and discussing their results.…”

Complementarity of Space and Time in Distance Representations

“…Evans (2013a) concludes that Bender et al's (2012) study has demonstrated that space structures temporal representations only to a certain extent. He emphasizes that while space is important for supporting temporal reference, the experience that underlies temporal representations is inherently temporal, rather than spatial in nature.…”

“…Recently, Bender has returned to the problem of relations between spatial frames of reference and temporal representations for the third time (Bender et al, 2012). This time the assumption that the preference for a specific spatial frame of reference is carried over to the domain of time was comprehensively scrutinized with a review of data from recent studies and experimental evidence from speakers of German, USA-English, Mandarin Chinese, and Tongan.…”

“…The study of Tenejapans demonstrated that systematic and consistent use of spatial linguistic expressions in the absolute frame of reference does not necessarily transfer to consistent absolute time conceptualization in non-linguistic tasks. Consequently, Brown (2012) concludes that spatial terms and reference frames habitually used to talk about space do not strictly determine the frames of reference used for conceptualizing time (see also Bender, Rothe-Wulf, Hüther & Beller, 2012).…”

“…Walsh, 2003) views on the relationship between space and time in cognition. Besides, the chapter reviews attempts to fit time into temporal frames of reference (Bender, Rothe-Wulf, Hüther & Beller, 2012;Evans, 2013a), and discusses respective roles of space and time in conceptualizations of objects and events (Langacker, 2008a).…”