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

Abstract

A task like "moving a meeting forward" reveals the ambiguity inherent in temporal references. That speakers of U.S. English do not agree on how to solve it is well established: Roughly one half moves the meeting futurewards, the other half pastwards. But the extent to which individual speakers, rather than groups of speakers, consider such phrases as ambiguous has not been scrutinized. Does the split in readings result from a lack of intraindividual consistency or from a lack of interindividual consensus? And how specific is U.S. English in this regard when compared to other closely related Germanic languages? Based on a taxonomy of spatiotemporal frames of reference (FoRs), we conducted two experiments with speakers of Swedish, U.S. English, and German to assess individual preferences for temporal FoRs, intra- and cross-linguistic variability, consistency and long-term stability of these preferences, and possible effects of priming a spatial FoR. The data reveal cross-linguistic differences, both in terms of which temporal FoRs speakers prefer (the absolute FoR in Sweden, the intrinsic FoR in German, and both of these in the US) and in terms of the extent to which these preferences are shared and stable (high consensus and consistency in Sweden and Germany, and low consensus and partial consistency in the US). Overall, no effect of spatial priming was observed; only speakers of U.S. English with a baseline preference for the absolute temporal FoR seemed to be susceptible to spatial priming. Thus, the assumption that temporal references are affected by spatial references is only weakly supported.

Turn around to have a look? Spatial referencing in dorsal vs. frontal settings in cross-linguistic comparison

“…Such preferences within a speech community, however, are not inherent in the meaning of words or in any language-specific feature for that matter, as has been argued elsewhere in some detail (Bender and Beller, 2014; Rothe-Wulf et al, 2015). They are a result of agreements or conventions within a speech community, and thus a cultural phenomenon.…”

“…Put simply: If we want to assess the extent to which preferences for spatial and temporal FoRs are related to each other, we need to know how people refer to configurations in their back (spatially) and in the past (temporally). However, recent evidence suggests that the relation between spatial and temporal FoRs is more complex, thus precluding a one-to-one mapping in language (e.g., Bender et al, 2012a; Le Guen and Pool Balam, 2012; Rothe-Wulf et al, 2015). …”

Does movement influence representations of time and space?

“…We suggest that a proper characterization of the factors that modulate temporal and spatial representations will need to look beyond the information that comes from sensorimotor experience alone, but consider interactions between sensorimotor experience (e.g., [47]) culture (e.g., [13]) and language (e.g., [48–50]). Several studies have shown that language and culture are strongly influenced by sensorimotor experiences (for an overview see [51]. )…”

“…Several studies have shown that language and culture are strongly influenced by sensorimotor experiences (for an overview see [51]. ) Further, language and culture are reported to modulate the reference frame that is used to answer ambiguous temporal or spatial questions (e.g., [13,48–50]). Therefore, it might be fruitful to examine interactions between sensorimotor experience, language, and culture and their weighted impact on temporal and spatial representations.…”

BeingIn FrontIs Good—But Where IsIn Front? Preferences for Spatial Referencing Affect Evaluation

“…Note that such an assessment was necessary because adoption of a specific FoR is not determined by language, but based on a combination of (sub‐)cultural conventions and individual preferences (Beller et al, 2015; Grabowski & Miller, 2000; Hill, 1982), and it must therefore be gleaned from each participant's actual spatial discrimination decision. Although individual preferences can change over time and depending on task and context, previous studies (Beller et al, 2015; Rothe‐Wulf, Beller, & Bender, 2015) suggest that set effects are strong enough to keep FoR preferences stable throughout the continuous course of this experiment (an assumption bearing out, as reported below). As one consequence, participants did not receive error feedback during IAT trials for incorrect responses as is otherwise often done in IATs.…”