1. Conceptual transfer of mental timeline A cross-linguistic study of the effect of temporal metaphors on the perception of time Keyi Sun Department of Linguistics, University of Canterbury

2. Outline Background The current study Implications
Bilingualism: L1 vs. L2
Conceptual transfer and Conceptual metaphors
Temporal metaphors
The current study
Aims
Methodology
Results
Implications
Conceptualization transfer
Differences within physical dimensions
Explicit metaphors
Future studies

3. Background Conceptual transfer - Shifting of conceptual knowledge
bi-directional effect
L1 ←→ L2
phonetic, phonological , syntactic, lexical choice, pragmatic: reading, writing, sentence processing , gesture, etc.
L1 ← bilingual cognitive behaviour → L2
Conceptual transfer - Shifting of conceptual knowledge
Languages have different patterns of conceptual categorization.
Bilinguals – these patterns can transfer across languages.
e.g. colour, grammatical number , grammatical gender, object naming, etc
(Athanasopoulos, 2009; Cook et al., 2006; Boroditsky, 2003)

4. Background
Conceptual transfer and conceptualization transfer (Jarvis, 2011)
concept – a group of things that share similar properties
conceptualization – a combination of two or more than two concepts
An observation – L2 users express certain things in conceptually different ways
A hypothesis – cross-linguistic influence of mental concepts and patterns of conceptualization from one language to another
An approach –cross-linguistic influence through recent empirical and theoretical findings in cognitive linguistics. E.g.:
cognitive semantics,
cognitive grammar,
semantic space,
metaphor theory.

5. Background Conceptual metaphors and Temporal metaphors
Conceptual metaphor / cognitive metaphor
- to understand one conceptual domain in terms of another
E.g. temporal metaphor
- to understand time in terms of space

6. Temporal metaphors (cont.)
Background
Temporal metaphors (cont.)
Factors shape people’s temporal reasoning/FOR(frame of reference) (Fuhrman et al., 2011):
1.Spatiotemporal metaphors (Boroditsky, 2001; Boroditsky et al., 2010; Núñez & Sweetser, 2006)
2.Availability of spatial representation either in the immediate environment or in the culture(Boroditsky & Gaby, 2010; Boroditsky & Ramscar, 2002; Núñez & Sweetser, 2006; Núñez et al., 2012)
3.Writing direction (Chan & Bergen, 2005; Fuhrman & Boroditsky, 2010; Ouellet et al., 2010)
4. Individual differences such as age, experience, etc.

7. Background Temporal metaphors (cont.) English, Mandarin Chinese
English speakers: horizontal future is ahead
Mandarin speakers: vertical 1.shang ge yue xia ge yue
upper month lower month
last month next month
horizontal qian tian hou tian
front day back day
the day before yesterday the day after tomorrow

8. The current study
Aims
Approaching conceptual transfer theory through metaphor theory.
Differences within dimension across languages rather than differences across languages in general.
Reveal the role that lexically embedded metaphor plays
Pilot study for future research

9. The current study Methodology Materials: 80 phrases
- 12 pairs temporal phrases
e.g. the day after tomorrow, the year 2020, last month
- 5 pairs time of day
e.g. morning, night
- 5 pairs health
e.g. sick, energetic
- 5 pairs emotion
e.g. happy, angry
- 5 pairs random
e.g. rational, busy
- 16 non-paired random
e.g. north, the river, Australia

10. The current study Methodology (cont.) Participants
10 native NZ English monolinguals
10 Mandarin-English late bilinguals
10 Mandarin monolinguals
Procedure
Pointing task with 4 conditions
any direction
left-right only
front-back only
up-down only
Random order of 80 phrases in each condition, and random order of constrained conditions
Model: lme4 linear mixed-effects models
model = lmer(response ~ language * type + (1|speaker)+ (1|word), family="binomial", data=test)

11. Results
a binomial model of testing responses of all the three groups on horizontal dimension,
b = bilinguals, m=monolinguals,

12. Results
front
bilinguals
back
a binomial model of testing responses of all the three groups on horizontal dimension,
b = bilinguals, m=monolinguals,

13. Results
comparison between bilinguals in Mandarin context and Mandarin monolinguals’ responses on horizontal dimension, yes = stimuli contain either ‘front’ or ‘back’, no = stimuli contain neither.

14. Results
Mandarin Chinese
front
model = lmer(response ~ type*contains + (1|speaker )+ (1|word), family="binomial", data=test)
back
a binomial model of testing responses of all the three groups on horizontal dimension,
b = bilinguals, m=monolinguals,

15. Results Notice the difference here！ front back
comparison between bilinguals in Mandarin context and Mandarin monolinguals’ responses on horizontal dimension, yes = stimuli contain either ‘front’ or ‘back’, no = stimuli contain neither.

16. Results
a binomial model of testing responses of all the three groups on vertical dimension, b=bilinguals, m=monolinguals

17. Results up
bilinguals
down
a binomial model of testing responses of all the three groups on vertical dimension, b=bilinguals, m=monolinguals

18. Results
comparison between bilinguals in Mandarin context and Mandarin monolinguals’ responses on vertical dimension, yes = stimuli contain either ‘front’ or ‘back’, no = stimuli contain neither.

19. Results up
Mandarin Chinese
down
a binomial model of testing responses of all the three groups on vertical dimension, b=bilinguals, m=monolinguals

20. Results Notice the difference here！ up down
comparison between bilinguals in Mandarin context and Mandarin monolinguals’ responses on vertical dimension, yes = stimuli contain either ‘front’ or ‘back’, no = stimuli contain neither.

21. Results
Differences between correlations, m=monolingual, b= bilingual

22. Results up
bilinguals
down
Differences between correlations, m=monolingual, b= bilingual, the model was run after removing temporal phrases, so the graph is only on fillers.

23. Summary of results
English monolinguals robustly associate the future with front & up
Correlation between vertical and horizontal dimensions is stronger for English (based on the correlation test on fillers).
The explicit encoding of metaphors has an effect in Mandarin but not in English.
Mandarin bilinguals showed intermediate tendencies
Bilinguals’ responses in English were significantly different from both their response in Mandarin, and from the English monolinguals’ responses.
Bilinguals’ response in Mandarin were significantly different from both their response in English, and from the Mandarin monolinguals’ responses.

24. Implications
An approach to conceptualization transfer of temporal reasoning through metaphor theory
It was transferred to future-front on horizontal level
On vertical level, it was transferred to future-up
The effect on Mandarin but not on English.
English and Mandarin speakers show different behaviours within the horizontal and vertical dimensions.
Language-dependent perception of time is affected by which metaphor (explicitly encoded) is being used.

25. Future studies Language embodiment vs. language in body movement
The effect of different FOR on body movement.
Language embodiment vs.
language in body movement
Temporal metaphor and body motion (Miles et al., 2010)
If the angle of body sway is congruent with temporal metaphor in that language, how about language show contradictory horizontal directions?

26. Future studies

27. References
Athanasopoulos, P. (2009). Cognitive representation of colour in bilinguals: The case of Greek blues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 83–95.
Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43(1), 1-22.
Boroditsky, L. (2003). Linguistic Relativity. In Nadel, L. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. MacMillan Press: London, UK, pages
Boroditsky, L., Fuhrman, O. & McCormick, K. (2010). Do English and Mandarin speakers think about time differently? Cognition, 118, 123–129.
Boroditsky, L. & Gaby, A. (2010). Remembrances of Times East: Absolute Spatial Representations of Time in an Australian Aboriginal Community. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1635–1639.

28. References
Boroditsky's, L. & Ramscar, M. (2002). The Roles of Body and Mind in Abstract Thought. Psychological Science, 13(2),
Chan, T. T., & Bergen, B. (2005). Writing direction influences spatial cognition. Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
Cook, V. J., Bassetti, B., Kasai, C., Sasaki, M., & Takahashi, J. A. (2006). Do bilinguals have different concepts? The case of shape and material in Japanese L2 users of English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 10, 137–152.
Fuhrman, O. & Boroditsky, L. (2010). Cross-Cultural Differences in Mental Representations of Time: Evidence from an Implicit Non- Linguistic Task. Cognitive Science, 34, 1430–1451.

29. References
Fuhrman, O., McCormick, K., Chen, E., Jiang, H., Shu, D., Mao, S., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). How linguistic and cultural forces shape conceptions of time: English and Mandarin Time in 3D. Cognitive Science, 35,
Miles, L. K., Nind, L. K., & Macrae, C. N. (2010). Moving through time. Psychological Science, 21(2),
Jarvis, S. (2011). Conceptual transfer: crosslinguistic effects in categorization and construal. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 1-8.
Núñez, R. E., Cooperrider, K., Doan, D. & Wassmann, J. (2012). Contours of time: topographic construals of past, present, and future in the Yupno valley of Papua New Guinea. Cognition, 123,

30. References
Nunez, R.E., & Sweetser, E. (2006). With the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Aymara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time. Cognitive Science, 30, 1–49.
Fuhrman, O., McCormick, K., Chen, E., Jiang, H., Shu, D., Mao, S., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). How linguistic and cultural forces shape conceptions of time: English and Mandarin Time in 3D. Cognitive Science, 35,
Ouellet, M., Santiago, J., Israeli, Z., & Gabay, S. (2010). Is the future the right time? Experimental Psychology, 57(4), 308–314.

31. Thank You!