The long and the short of it: On the nature and origin of functional overlap between representations of space and time

Abstract

When we describe time, we often use the language of space (The movie was long; The deadline is approaching). Experiments 1–3 asked whether—as patterns in language suggest—a structural similarity between representations of spatial length and temporal duration is easier to access than one between length and other dimensions of experience, such as loudness. Adult participants were shown pairings of lines of different length with tones of different duration (Experiment 1) or tones of different loudness (Experiment 2). The length of the lines and duration or loudness of the tones was either positively or negatively correlated. Participants were better able to bind particular lengths and durations when they were positively correlated than when they were not, a pattern not observed for pairings of lengths and tone amplitudes, even after controlling for the presence of visual cues to duration in Experiment 1 (Experiment 3). This suggests that representations of length and duration may functionally overlap to a greater extent than representations of length and loudness. Experiments 4 and 5 asked whether experience with and mastery of words like long and short—which can flexibly refer to both space and time—itself creates this privileged relationship. Nine-month-old infants, like adults, were better able to bind representations of particular lengths and durations when these were positively correlated (Experiment 4), and failed to show this pattern for pairings of lengths and tone amplitudes (Experiment 5). We conclude that the functional overlap between representations of length and duration does not result from a metaphoric construction processes mediated by learning to flexibly use words such as long and short. We suggest instead that it may reflect an evolutionary recycling of spatial representations for more general purposes.

Evolution of word meanings through metaphorical mapping: Systematicity over the past millennium

“…As such, more external (and embodied) word meanings are predicted to be well understood and richly structured, and to provide a source of mappings for ideas that are more difficult to understand. Alternatively, our results may not reveal that abstract concepts are understood in terms of external and embodied concepts, per se, but rather, that external and embodied word meanings are easier to achieve shared reference for and to learn (Srinivasan & Carey, 2010;Thibodeau & Durgin, 2008) because of their salience and physical availability in experience. It is also possible that external meanings tend to be more frequent, and may thus be easier to retrieve for speakers who wish to communicate new ideas (Hanley et al, 2013;cf.…”

“…Three of the variables we considered as predictors are suggested by Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980;Reddy, 1979;Sweetser, 1991) and supported by other perspectives suggesting that certain types of meanings should more commonly serve as sources of metaphorical extensions (e.g., Carey, 2010, andThibodeau &Durgin, 2008, as discussed above; see also Traugott, 1990). …”

Toward a Radically Embodied Neuroscience of Attachment and Relationships?

“…One hallmark study by Boroditsky and Ramscar (2002) found that time can be grounded in the concrete experience of space. However, Srinivasan and Carey (2010) found that comparable time-space effects are already detected in preverbal infants. Thus, such abstract representations might be explainable through either embodied processes, or a process of scaffolding (see also IJzerman and Koole, 2011;IJzerman et al, 2015b).…”

Math, monkeys, and the developing brain

“…In addition, 9-mo-olds can readily learn pairs of positively (but not negatively) correlated line lengths and tone durations (60), suggesting that infants at least can represent an abstract "more-than" and "less-than" representation that applies to both dimensions. However, 9-mo-old infants do not show equal sensitivity to monotonic pairings between the dimensions of loudness and space as they do for pairing of space and time (60). Those findings suggest that there may be an asymmetry between magnitudes in their intrinsic ordinal associations.…”

“…One recent study showed that 9-mo-olds were equally likely to transfer an arbitrary, experimentally learned magnitude-to-texture association from one dimension (e.g., number) to another dimension (size or duration) (59). In addition, 9-mo-olds can readily learn pairs of positively (but not negatively) correlated line lengths and tone durations (60), suggesting that infants at least can represent an abstract "more-than" and "less-than" representation that applies to both dimensions. However, 9-mo-old infants do not show equal sensitivity to monotonic pairings between the dimensions of loudness and space as they do for pairing of space and time (60).…”