心理科学进展, 2018, 26(6): 975-983 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.00975

研究前沿

“前”、“后”轴上的内隐时空映射及其影响因素 *

李恒,

英国诺森比亚大学人文系, 纽卡斯尔NE1 8ST

Implicit space-time mappings on the front and back axis and their influencing factors

LI Heng,

Department of Humanities, Northumbria University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE18ST, UK

通讯作者: 李恒, E- mail: leehem168@163.com

收稿日期: 2017-09-26   网络出版日期: 2018-06-10

基金资助: * 江苏高校优势学科建设工程资助项目.  江苏师范大学中国语言文学
国家973计划课题.  2014CB340502

Received: 2017-09-26   Online: 2018-06-10

摘要

利用空间方位“前”、“后”来理解和表征时间概念是人类语言和认知的一个基本特点。然而, 人们心智中的内隐时空映射方向并不总与语言中的外显时空隐喻表达一致。近年来提出的“时间焦点假设”认为, 人们内隐思维中的前后时空隐喻映射主要取决于时间焦点, 即认知主体对于过去、现在和未来等时间事件的注意力。大量研究表明, 与时间注意焦点相关的诸多因素, 如文化态度、个体差异以及生活经验等都有可能影响内隐时空映射, 为“时间焦点假设”提供了支持证据, 同时也反映出人类时间认知系统的灵活性与可塑性。

关键词: 时空隐喻 ; 时间焦点假设 ; 认知灵活性 ; 具身认知 ; 内隐时空映射

Abstract

One of the prominent characteristics of human language and cognition is to use the spatial concepts such as “front” and “back” to understand and represent temporal concepts such as the “past” and “future”. However, people’s implicit space-time mappings are not always consistent with explicit space-time mappings in their speech. In recent years, the “Temporal Focus Hypothesis” proposes that sagittal space-time mappings in people’s minds are shaped by their attentional focus, namely, the conceptualizers’ attentions to past, present and future events. A large body of research has shown that many factors related to temporal focus such as cultural attitudes, individual differences and life experiences may influence people’s implicit space-time mappings. These studies not only provide supporting evidence for the “Temporal Focus Hypothesis”, but also reflect the flexibility and malleability of human time cognition system.

Keywords: spatial metaphors for time ; “Temporal Focus Hypothesis” ; cognitive flexibility ; embodied cognition ; implicit space-time mappings

PDF (394KB) 元数据 多维度评价 相关文章 导出 EndNote| Ris| Bibtex  收藏本文

本文引用格式

李恒. “前”、“后”轴上的内隐时空映射及其影响因素 * . 心理科学进展[J], 2018, 26(6): 975-983 doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.00975

LI Heng. Implicit space-time mappings on the front and back axis and their influencing factors. Advances in Psychological Science[J], 2018, 26(6): 975-983 doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.00975

1 引言

时间是人类存在的基本形式。然而, 时间看不见、摸不着, 人们也缺乏相应的器官对其进行感知。那么, 时间概念如何表征?概念隐喻理论认为, 所有抽象概念的理解和表征都必须借助于具体概念, 时间也不例外(Boroditsky & Ramscar, 2002; Gibbs, 2017; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980)。跨语言研究表明, 几乎所有的人类自然语言都倾向于借助空间概念来表达时间, 因此形成了不同的“时间的空间隐喻” (spatial metaphors for time) (Evans, 2004; Li, 2017; Moore, 2014; Núñez & Cooperrider, 2013)。由于三维性是空间的基本特征, 而时间在空间经验的基础上才能加以表征, 故在前后、上下、左右三条空间轴线上都有可能形成时空隐喻映射(Bender & Beller, 2014; Laudau, 2016)。在这当中, 以“前后”时间隐喻最为常见。

从隐喻映射方向来看, 在英语、西班牙语等大多数语言中, 人们都倾向于用“前”表示“未来”, 用“后”表示“过去”。Clark (1973)认为, 这主要与空间经验密切相连。人们朝前走, 而一般不会倒退。从时间上看, 过去经历过的地方通常处于身体的后方, 因此“后”与“过去”相连, 而未来将要走到的地方处于身体的前方, 故“前”与“未来”相连。与此相反的是, 目前发现在某些语言和文化中, 也存在用“后”表示未来, 用“前”表示过去的说法。例如, Núñez和Sweetser (2006)发现, 由于艾依玛拉语(Aymara)中存在大量表示言据性(evidentiality)的语法标记, 即语言使用者在表达信息/知识的来源时, 必须明确指明其是否为亲眼所见。受此影响, 由于过去的事情或经验常常为说话者所亲历, 因此艾依玛拉人倾向于将其放在身体(眼睛)的前方, 表示具有较高的可见度。与此相反的是, 未来事件很少能为人们所预见, 故艾依玛拉人偏好将其放在身体的(眼睛)的后方, 表示可见度低。

需要指出的是, 时间和空间的对应关系不仅存在于外显的语言表达中, 同时也存在于人们的心智思维中, 可能形成不同方向上的“内隐时空映射(implicit space-time mappings)” (Casasanto, 2016; de la Fuente, Santiago, Román, Dumitrache, & Casasanto, 2014)。心理学研究表明, 语言和心智思维中的时空映射方向有时保持一致, 有时却呈现出分离的状态。这说明, 语言可能不是影响内隐时间认知的唯一要素。针对上述问题, 本文首先回顾外显和内隐时空映射的同一性和差异性, 其次根据近几年兴起的“时间焦点假设”, 分析影响人们内隐时空映射的主要因素, 最后对现有研究存在的问题进行梳理并对未来研究前景进行展望。

2 外显和内隐时空映射的关系

2.1 外显和内隐时空映射的同一性

近年来, 研究者发现时间和空间的联系不仅存在于语言表达中, 而且二者在信息加工上也会相互影响, 存在深层次的认知联系。例如, 人们倾向于将从过去到未来的时间想象成沿着某一空间方向延伸的线, 即心理时间线(mental timeline)。大量研究发现, 诸多语言讲话者在前后方向上的内隐时空映射与其口头表达中的外显映射完全一致, 存在空间-时间联合编码效应(李恒, 张积家, 2016; Walker, Bergen, & Núñez, 2017; Stocker, Hartmann, Martarelli, & Mast, 2016)。Torralbo, Santiago和Lupiáñez (2006)最早利用反应时任务考察了该效应。在实验中, 电脑屏幕上首先出现一张朝左或朝右的侧脸, 然后在人脸的前方或后方呈现一个与时间相关的词汇。研究者要求西班牙语被试口头回答出该词所代表的时间事件(“过去”或“未来”)。结果发现, 当表示“未来”的词汇出现在人脸前方或表示“过去”的词汇出现在人脸后方时, 被试的反应更快。这一反应模式与西班牙语中利用“前”表未来, “后”表过去的时间隐喻完全一致, 体现了时间语言和时间思维的认知同一性。

除反应时任务外, 研究者发现时间心理表征的空间性在人们的体态和手势中也有所表现(Rinaldi, Locati, Parolin, Bernardi, & Girelli, 2016; Sell & Kaschak, 2011; Sullivan & Bui, 2016)。大量研究表明, 人们在表达时间概念时, 往往无意识使用一些体态和手势, 这些动作所包含的方向反映出深层次的时间思维方式, 是内隐时空映射的重要体现(McNeill, 1992; Walker & Núñez, 2017; 李恒, 2016)。如Miles, Nind和Macrae (2010)发现, 当英语母语者在想象一个与未来相关的事件时, 其身体表现出一定程度的前倾, 而在想象一个与过去相关的事件时, 其身体会后倾。Núñez和Sweetser (2006)观察到, 艾依玛拉人在表达过去时间时, 倾向于做出向前运动的手势; 在表达未来时间时, 手势往后运动。手势运动的方向恰好与其口头表达中的“未来在后, 过去在前”时间隐喻一致。上述结果说明, 空间经验是时间概念得以表征的重要基础, 时空隐喻映射在语言和认知中具有较强的认知同一性。

2.2 外显和内隐时空映射的差异性和分离性

虽然大量研究在不同语言和文化中都发现了外显和内隐时空映射的同一性。然而, 近年来有研究表明, 人们在使用时间隐喻时, 其时间内隐认知并不总是与语言表达一致, 有时甚至出现分离的状态(Casasanto, 2016; Walker & Cooperrider, 2016)。如Casasanto和Jasmin (2012)发现, 英语讲话者口语中主要使用“未来在前, 过去在后”的时间隐喻。然而, 在他们的伴语手势中, 却倾向于做出向左的手势表示“过去”, 向右的手势表示“未来”。所以如此, 从语用交际的角度来看, 人们在面对面交流时, 如果使用过多前后方向上的手势, 可能侵犯他人空间, 有不礼貌之嫌(Cienki, 1998)。从信息传达的角度来看, 前后方向上的手势运动受到更多身体上的限制, 范围通常只有左右方向上的一半(如难以延伸至身体的后方), 也不如后者灵活, 信息传递的数量和效率自然受到影响, 因此人们更加倾向于使用左右方向上的手势表达时间信息。

除此之外, 时间语言和时间思维的不一致性, 不仅体现在对不同轴线的选择上, 还有可能出现在同一轴线上的不同方向。例如, de la Fuente, Santiago, Román, Dumitrache和Casasanto (2014)发现, 虽然摩洛哥大理亚人(Darija)在其口语中倾向于使用“前”表示未来, 用“后”表示“过去”, 但其时间手势却表现出相反的时空隐喻映射模式, 手势向前表示过去, 手势向后表示“未来”, 体现了外显和内隐时空映射的分离性。

3 时间语言和时间思维关系的理论解释

目前, 研究者从不同角度对外显和内隐时空映射的同一性与分离性进行了解释, 并提出了一系列的模型和假设。总结起来, 一是从语言和思维的关系入手, 提出了“隐喻构念观(Metaphorical Structuring Theory)”, 认为时空隐喻是塑造时间思维的主要因素; 二是从具身认知的角度出发, 提出了“时间焦点假设(Temporal Focus Hypothesis)”, 认为时间思维是环境和个体因素共同作用的结果。

3.1 隐喻构念观

Lakoff和Johnson (1980)提出的概念隐喻理论认为, 人们可以利用具体可及的空间经验对缺乏实体的抽象概念(如时间等)进行体验式表征和加工。虽然该理论首次指明了空间经验在时间等抽象概念建构中的重要作用, 但有研究者提出, 概念隐喻理论长期囿于语言证据, 无法有效地证明时空隐喻的心理现实性, 更不能对隐喻加工的心理机制作出说明(Haser, 2005; McGlone, 2007; Murphy, 1996; 江桂英, 李恒, 2011)。与此同时, 有研究者受到语言相对论启发, 认为不同语言在结构、意义和使用方面的差异, 可能在很大程度上影响说话者的思维方式(Whorf, 2000)。Boroditsky (2000, 2001)在此基础上, 结合其对时间隐喻加工的研究, 提出了隐喻构念观。该观点认为, 个体在其语言中所包含的时空隐喻引导下, 会有意识地在心理和思维层面建立起与之相对应的时空映射关系, 因此语言是影响人们时间思维方式的重要因素。对上述两种观点进行对比后不难发现, 二者的根本分歧实际上在于是否认为空间和时间之间的经验联系贯穿隐喻习得与加工的全部过程。隐喻构念观认为, 人们思维中某种时空隐喻映射的建立与强化, 其关键因素在于其使用的语言, 而非空间和时间在现实生活中的经验联系。如汉语讲话者使用更多的垂直隐喻, 因此其更有可能形成竖直方向上的内隐时空映射。相反, 阿莫达瓦人(Amondawa)的语言中不存在利用空间术语表达时间的说法, 因此心智思维中也不能形成任何内隐时空隐喻映射(Sinha, Sinha, Zinken, & Sampaio, 2011; Sinha, Sinha, & Zinken, 2016)。

虽然隐喻构念观得到了许多实证研究的支持, 尤其对外显和内隐时空映射同一性这一现象具有较强的解释力。但需要指出的是, 该理论也存在可复制性的问题(Chen & O’Seaghdha, 2013; January & Kako, 2007; Tse & Altarriba, 2008)。如Chen (2007)认为, 对汉语母语者自身而言, 其纵轴时间表征相比于横轴时间表征并不具有任何优势。但Fuhrman等人(2011)认为反对派并没有严格复制之前的实验, 在方法上存在明显缺陷, 如实验材料没有在被试间平衡等。此外, Chen等人的实验结果似乎同样表明, 相较于英语讲话者, 汉语讲话者更容易形成纵轴时间表征。另一方面, 目前的实验证据大多来自于跨文化研究, 其本质属于准实验设计。被试在实验开始之前, 就已经是某种语言的讲话者, 研究者无法排除其他因素(如文化、阅读书写等)对时间思维方式的影响, 因此难以证实时间语言与时间思维之间的因果关系。但最近的一项研究表明, 时空隐喻表达确实可以塑造人们的心理时间表征。Hendricks和Boroditsky (2017)要求一组英语母语被试学习一种在其语言中不存在的时空隐喻映射, 如“早饭在晚饭之上”或“晚饭在早饭之下”, 当中暗含了“过去在上, 未来在下”的隐喻联系, 另外一组被试则学习一种完全相反的映射模式。结果发现, 经过训练的被试倾向于按照之前学习过的时空隐喻映射将时间事件进行上下排列。虽然Boroditsky及其合作者对之前的质疑进行了较好的回应, 但需要指出的的是, 隐喻构念观依然无法对某些群体身上出现的外显和内隐时空映射分离现象作出说明。在此背景下, 有研究者提出了“时间焦点假设”。

3.2 时间焦点假设

既然语言中的时空隐喻映射无法预测摩洛哥人的内隐时间思维, 研究者开始思考其他可能决定内隐时空映射的因素。这当中, 以de la Fuente等人(2014)提出的“时间焦点假设(Temporal Focus Hypothesis, TFH)”最具代表性。该理论认为, 人们内隐思维中的前后时空隐喻映射主要取决于时间焦点, 即认知主体对于过去、现在和未来等时间事件的注意力。根据具身认知理论, 在身体活动与客观世界互动的过程中, 人们会获得各种各样的空间经验。随着经验的积累, 人们会以身体为中心, 建立起一系列空间概念, 如上下、前后和左右等。在此基础上, 才能建立起更加抽象的概念(如时间等) (Barsalou, 1999, 2016; Meier, Schnall, Schwarz, & Bargh, 2012; 叶浩生, 2010)。按照一般经验, 注意力主要与视觉相连。比如在日常生活中, 人们倾向于将需要更多注意力的事物放在身体前方以及视线范围内, 而将不那么重要的事物放在身体后方或者移出视线范围之外。因此, 如果人们对某一时间事件的注意力越多, 就越有可能将其与前方相连。反之, 得到注意力较少的时间事件, 则更有可能与后方相连。

为了验证这一假设, de la Fuente等人(2014)使用了一个时间图表任务以考察西班牙和摩洛哥被试的内隐时间思维。测试材料由一个卡通人物和两个正方形组成。从上往下看, 主人公的正前方和正后方各有一个方形小框(图1)。被试首先阅读一个场景:图中的卡通人物昨天去拜访了一名喜欢动物(植物)的朋友, 明天要去看望一名喜欢植物(动物)的朋友。被试需要将植物和动物放置在他们认为合适的方框里(植物、动物的出现顺序在被试间平衡)。从实验设计来看, 该任务时间概念(昨天和明天)并未与空间方位(前方和后方)直接相连, 实验目的隐蔽, 避免了空间提示性强的缺陷, 因此能够较好地考察时间和空间的内隐联系。为进一步考察被试的时间心理倾向是否与其隐喻选择一致, de la Fuente等人(2014)设计了一份“时间焦点调查问卷”。问卷共包含20个以“过去” (10个)和“未来” (10个)时间相关的问题, 如“传统的生活方式优于现代生活方式” (过去焦点)和“创新以及适应新变化对我来说非常重要” (未来焦点)。要求被试在5点量表(1=非常不同意, 2=不同意, 3=不一定, 4=同意, 5=非常同意)上对表述进行评分。

图1

图1   时间图表任务


研究者发现, 在时间图表任务中, 西班牙人更有可能将表示未来的事物放在身体前方, 将表示过去的事物放在身体后方, 而摩洛哥人则表现出相反的认知模式。研究者认为, 这主要与二者的文化态度有关。西班牙人重视科学发展、社会进步, 表现出较强的未来关注性思维, 对未来事件的注意力更多, 因此倾向于使用“未来在前, 过去在后”的时间隐喻模式。与此相反的是, 摩洛哥人重视传统文化, 强调古代仪式传承, 表现出较强的过去关注性思维, 对过去事件的注意力更多, 因此倾向于使用“过去在前, 未来在后”的时间隐喻模式。“时间焦点调查问卷”的结果也证实了这一观察:西班牙人对与未来时间相关表述的评分更高, 而摩洛哥人对与过去时间相关表述的评分更高。西班牙人和摩洛哥人对过去和未来相关事物的关注程度能够较好地预测二者对两类时空隐喻选择的偏好, 从而证明了“时间焦点假设”的正确性。

从上述实验可以看出, “时间焦点假设”既可以对时间语言和时间思维的同一性现象作出解释, 如西班牙语讲话者在口头表达和内隐时间任务中都表现出“未来在前, 过去在后”的时空隐喻映射, 也同样可以说明时间语言和时间思维产生分离的动因, 如摩洛哥人的前后时空隐喻映射在语言和认知中恰好相反。应当说, 相比于隐喻构念观, “时间焦点假设”具有更强的解释力。近两三年来, 受该假设启发, 研究者采取相同的实验任务, 在不同环境下对多个人群的时间认知方式进行了考察。结果发现, 除语言外, 诸多与时间焦点相关的因素都有可能影响人们的内隐时间认知, 这不仅说明了时空隐喻映射的复杂性, 也体现了人类时间认知系统的灵活性。

4 影响内隐时空隐喻映射的因素

“时间焦点假设”认为, 对过去和未来时间的关注度是塑造人们内隐时空映射的关键因素。另有研究发现, 文化态度、个体差异(如年龄等)、生活场景(如居住环境等)以及认知训练等因素都有可能影响人们对不同时间事件的关注程度(Shipp, Edwards, & Lambert, 2009)。基于此, 不少学者开始探究这些与时间焦点相关的因素, 能否最终影响人们心智思维中的内隐时空映射。

4.1 对待时间的文化态度

如上所述, 研究者认为, 西班牙人和摩洛哥人时间概念化方式的不同源于其文化态度上的差异。这说明, 文化是影响时间隐喻映射的重要因素。然而, de la Fuente等人(2014)主要关注欧洲和非洲人群。为了进一步验证理论的普适性, 研究者尝试将目光投向其他民族与文化。如Gu, Zheng和Swerts (2016)发现, 相比于西班牙母语者(12.8%), 汉语母语者更倾向于形成“过去在前, 未来在后”的隐喻映射(36.8%)。研究者认为, 这主要与中国人对怀旧具有更强的情绪体验, 更加看重过去有关, 因此支持“时间焦点假设”。Li和Cao (2018)同样在中国文化中考察了内地青年未孕女性的内隐时空映射, 结果发现, 被试对两种前后时间隐喻模式几乎表现出相同的偏好(55.2 % vs. 44.8%, p = 0.391 by Sign Test), 并且被试对过去和未来事件的评分也没有表现出明显的差异。这说明, 中国青年女性并未表现出明显的怀旧情绪。时间焦点能够较好地预测中国未孕女性被试前后时间隐喻模式的选择, 同样支持“时间焦点假设”。

但需要指出的是, 虽然上述两个实验均支持“时间焦点假设”, 但其结果却存在差异, Gu等人(2016)认为中国人具有“过去朝向思维”, 而Li和Cao (2018)认为中国人(至少女性)对过去和未来的关注度相同, 未表现出明显的偏好。对此, 可能的解释是:首先, 在Gu等人(2016)的研究中, 虽然中国人相比于西班牙人更加喜欢使用“过去在前, 未来在后”的内隐时空映射, 但就其自身而言, 中国人对两种前后时间隐喻模式的选择没有显著差异(36.8% vs. 63.2%, p = 0.14 by Sign Test), 这与Li和Cao (2018)的结果一致。其次, Gu等人(2016) 实际上没有对汉语被试的时间焦点进行测量。相反, 他们主要引用的是其他学者有关中国人怀旧情绪的研究。如Ji, Guo, Zhang和Messervey (2009)发现, 相比于加拿大人, 中国人对过去新的关注程度更高, 记忆力也更好。然而, 这些研究并没有涉及中国人对未来事件的感知与注意, 因此无从知道中国人对未来时间的关注度是否低于其对过去时间的关注度。

4.2 个体差异

个体差异对于诸多心理活动或过程都会产生影响, 时间认知方式也不例外(Duffy & Feist, 2014; 李恒, 2015)。对于生活在同一文化中的人群而言, 其时间隐喻选择偏好以及时间焦点倾向也可能存在差异。如de la Fuente等人(2014)通过对比西班牙年轻人和老年人的时间焦点和内隐时空映射发现, 前者更加重视未来, 习惯于将“未来”放在身体的前方, 而后者更为珍惜过去, 故将“过去”放在身体的前方。这说明, 文化并不是决定时间认知方式的唯一方式。相反, 人们的时间焦点和时空隐喻映射模式有可能随着成长过程和身体状态的改变而发生变化。Waliński (2016)通过分析语料库中反映时间焦点的表达也发现, 波兰年轻人更加关注个人、社会和职业发展, 因此使用更多表示未来时间视域的副词, 而这一表达模式在中年人身上呈现出明显的下降趋势, 显示出时间焦点的动态变化过程。

进化心理学发现, 女性怀孕后, 母亲角色的转换会引发其对未来生活和未来事件的深入思考和重新规划, 如权衡工作和家庭的比重, 关注后代的良好发展等, 这些都可能促使个体表现出强烈的未来取向思维(李爱梅, 彭元, 熊冠星, 2015)。基于这一假设, Li和Cao (2018) 利用时间图表任务发现, 中国青年怀孕女性更加倾向于形成“未来在前, 过去在后”的内隐时空映射, 并且在时间焦点评分中, 对未来事件的赞同度也更高, 同样支持“时间焦点假设”。

4.3 场景因素

在现实世界中, 人们生活的场景并非总是一成不变。研究者发现, 由于人类认知系统的灵活性与可塑性, 生活经验也可能对时间认知方式造成影响。Li和Cao (2017)通过时间图表任务和时间焦点调查问卷考察了不同时间长度的生活经验对中国被试内隐时空映射的影响。从长期生活经验来看, 生活在胡同的居民比居住在现代公寓的居民更加倾向于形成“过去在前, 未来在后”的内隐时空映射。在时间焦点上, 前者对代表过去时间的表述评分高于后者, 而对代表未来时间的表述评分低于后者, 从而支持“时间焦点假设”。这是由于, 胡同代表的是一种传统的生活居住方式, 更有可能触发被试的过去取向思维, 而现代公寓代表的是当代社会居住环境的发展趋势, 更有可能导致被试形成未来取向思维。

研究者甚至发现, 不仅长期的居住生活经验会对被试的时间认知方式产生影响, 短期的参观经验也可能改变人们的时间焦点偏好, 从而改变其内隐时空隐喻映射。Li和Cao (2017)发现, 参观古代钱币展的汉语母语者在时间图表任务中倾向于将“过去”放在身体的前方, 而参观先锋艺术展的汉语母语者更有可能将“未来”放在身体的前方。所以如此, 是由于文物通常代表着历史文化传统, 因此被试在该种环境下过去取向水平较高。与此不同的是, 先锋艺术展意味着思维上的超前意识, 代表着一种新的秩序, 有利于被试产生未来情景思维。上述实验表明, 二者对不同时间事件重视程度的差异导致其产生了不同的内隐时空映射模式, 均证明了“时间焦点假设”的正确性。

4.4 认知训练

目前有关“时间焦点假设”的研究, 大多采取准实验设计(quasi-experimental design), 意指在无需随机安排被试的前提下, 在自然环境中考察原始群体的时间认知模式。然而, 该范式的一个缺点在于其内部效度较低, 结论往往只能证明两个因素的相关性, 而非因果性。比如, 学习历史学或人类学专业能够促使被试产生更高水平的过去取向思维, 从而导致其更有可能使用“过去在前, 未来在后”的内隐时空映射, 可以在一定程度上说明时间焦点会对时间隐喻产生影响(Li & Cao, 2017)。但另外一种可能的解释是, 具有某种特点时间取向思维的人群, 在其受教育的过程中, 更有可能选择与对应时间事件密切相关的专业, 如过去取向思维的个体更有可能选择历史学专业。因此, 准实验设计无法确切地证明时间焦点与时间认知方式之间的因果关系或双向关系。

为证明时间焦点与内隐时空隐喻映射之间的因果性, de la Fuente等人(2014)采用认知训练的方法, 在充分控制其他无关变量的条件下, 将西班牙语讲话者随机地分配至“过去焦点”和“未来焦点”组, 以考察时间焦点对时间隐喻的直接影响。结果发现, 接受过去焦点训练的被试在时间图表任务中, 回答“过去在前, 未来在后”时空映射模式的频率得到了明显提升; 接受未来焦点训练的被试, 回答“未来在前, 过去在后” 时空映射模式的频率明显增高。该实验确认了时间焦点和时空隐喻映射的因果关系, 为“时间焦点假设”的证明提供了更为有力的证明。与此同时, 该实验也说明, 人类的时间认知系统具有较强的灵活性与可塑性, 即使通过短期训练, 其内隐时空映射方向也可能得到改变(Casasanto & Bottini, 2014)。

5 总结与展望

由以上分析可知, 已有研究关注了外显和内隐时空隐喻映射前后方向上的的表现形式、影响因素及其发生的认知心理机制。研究表明, 内隐时空映射模式的联结方向可能受到语言、文化态度、个体差异以及生活经验等多种因素的影响。研究者运用“时间焦点假设”, 结合概念隐喻理论和具身认知理论, 对其发生的心理机制予以了系统解释。从语言类型学角度来看, 研究者在不同语系语言中对“时间焦点假设”进行了考察, 如汉语(藏缅语系)、大理亚语(马格里布语系)、西班牙语(罗曼语系)等。但总体来看, 语言种类比较有限, 实验数据也较少。从理论构建来看, “时间焦点假设”虽然可以较好地解释某些文化群体中时间语言和时间思维的分离性, 但似乎不能完全证伪“隐喻构念观”。例如, 对于西班牙语讲话者来说, 其口语中的时空隐喻映射方向似乎与内隐时空隐喻映射方向完全一致。如此一来, 语言和时间焦点均能对此做出解释。综上所述, 虽然目前学界对人们内隐思维中前后时空隐喻映射的考察取得了诸多进展, 但是仍存在一些未解决的问题, 需要进一步研究。

首先, 从认知机制来看, 多种因素都能从不同方面影响个体的时间焦点, 从而影响其时空隐喻映射方向。虽然这些因素对时间焦点的差异都有贡献, 但是它们在影响个体时间认知方式中所占的比重以及它们之间的交互作用如何, 目前为止还缺乏深入的研究。在未来的研究中, 可以将文化态度、个体差异以及生活方式等因素综合起来, 探讨它们对于时间隐喻映射方向的影响是否存在交互作用, 以便对个体的内隐时间认知得出更加完善的认识。

其次, 从实验材料来看, de la Fuente等人(2014)的时间图表任务因其实验目的隐蔽以及实验操作简便, 已成为考察时空隐喻映射的经典范式, 也在后来诸多研究中得到应用。然而, 该实验任务也存在一定的缺陷。由于其本质乃是一种离线任务, 无法考察被试对时间隐喻即时加工的时间进程。被试有可能意识到实验目的, 并且使用特定的反应策略对问题进行回答, 影响实验结果。今后可采用事件相关电位 (event-related potential, ERP)任务和功能性磁共振成像(functional magnetic resonance imaging, fMRI)等在线方法对被试的时间隐喻映射方向进行更为准确的测量。

再次, 从取样方法来看, 目前不少研究采取的都是横断面调查(cross-sectional study), 主要在某一特定时间内对特定范围内人群, 以个人为单位收集和描述人群的行为特征, 如de la Fuente等人(2014)通过对比年轻和年老西班牙人发现, 随着年龄的增长, 年岁较大的西班牙人会出现怀旧性记忆上涨(Reminiscence bump)现象, 即倾向于更多回忆年幼时期以及青春期岁月里所发生的事情, 因此导致他们时间焦点思维的过去取向水平更高。然而, 年老群体与年轻群体在时间认知方式上的差异可能源于二者成长时不同的文化背景、教育经历以及生活习惯等, 即存在同辈效应(cohort effect), 并不一定表明时间焦点会随着年龄的增长而变得更加偏向过去。未来的研究可采用历时追踪的方法, 通过标记相同人群时间思维的年龄序列特点, 形成以寿命为记录跨度的时间焦点变化曲线, 从而更加全面地考察人类时间认知系统的可变性。

最后, 从研究范围来看, 目前对于“时间焦点假设”的验证, 主要集中在对前后时间轴上。由于不同轴上空间-时间联合编码效应的强弱程度存在差异, 不同的时间焦点是否会影响人们在其他空间轴上的时间表征还值得进一步研究(Eikmeier, Alex-Ruf, Maienborn, & Ulrich, 2015)。目前有少数研究考察了时间焦点与左右时间轴的心理表征问题。刘馨元和张志杰(2016)发现, 时间焦点在过去的被试在过去时间词启动下, 对左侧空间反应更快, 但未来时间与空间之间不存在显著关联; 时间焦点在未来的被试在未来时间词启动下, 对右侧空间反应更快, 但过去时间与空间之间不存在显著关联。上述结果表明, 时间焦点对左右时间表征差异的影响可能弱于前后时间轴, 在一定程度上支持了“时间焦点假设”。在今后的研究中, 还可进一步考察汉语讲话者竖直轴上内隐时空映射的强弱程度及其与时间焦点的关系。

6 结语

早期大量研究表明, 人们的内隐时空映射很大程度上受到时间隐喻的影响, 二者表现出较大的同一性。近年来, 有研究者发现, 不少语言和文化中的外显和内隐时空映射呈现分离的状态, 从而说明语言不是影响时间思维的唯一要素。近年来兴起的“时间焦点假设”认为, 人们内隐认知中的前后时空隐喻映射主要受其时间焦点的影响, 即认知主体对某一时间事件的关注度越高, 就越有可能将其放在身体的前方。近几年的研究发现, 诸多与时间焦点相关的因素, 如文化态度、生活经验以及认知训练等都有可能影响人们的时间思维方式。但需要指出的是, 此类研究仍较为分散, 缺乏整合和理论框架。因此可以预期, 随着“时间焦点假设”的发展, 我们需要发展一个动态的、综合考虑多个因素的前后时空隐喻映射模型, 以期对其背后的心理机制做出更加合理、全面的解释。

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
作者已声明无竞争性利益关系。

参考文献

江桂英, 李恒 . ( 2011).

概念隐喻研究在神经科学中的新进展——以心理现实性问题为例

外语教学与研究, 43( 6), 934-941.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Lakoff依据现象学方法提出概念隐喻理论伊始,便不乏质疑,其一便是有无心理现实性。由于方法论和研究角度的局限性,争辩双方早期常常囿于本体论的证明,难以超越逻辑思辨层面得到定论。近期神经科学的研究成果表明,概念隐喻基于神经元的心智模拟功能,其心理现实性在行为、神经心理学和个体发育等方面都是成立的。本文从认识论角度入手,综述了神经科学中有关概念隐喻心理现实性的最新研究,并对前人实验中的问题进行了总结和展望。语言体现于心智,物化于大脑。通过神经科学研究隐喻,有利于该理论的巩固与发展。

李爱梅, 彭元, 熊冠星 . ( 2015).

孕妇更长计远虑?——怀孕对女性跨期决策偏好的影响

心理学报, 47( 11), 1360-1370.

[本文引用: 1]

李恒 . ( 2015).

压力感对汉语使用者时间隐喻理解的影响

现代外语, 38( 6), 770-778.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

本研究采用离线加工任务,以问卷调查法考察压力感对汉语使用者时间认知的影响。结果发现:1)较强的压力感会激活被试有关逃离的感觉运动信息,其空间移动方向与时间在动隐喻相同,出现了"隐喻一致性效应";2)被试可以将直接感受到的空间经验作为具身认知的桥梁,使压力感和时间两个抽象概念产生联系;3)从神经科学角度来看,压力感和时间等抽象概念的离线认知加工,会受到在线加工编码的感觉运动信息的影响。整个研究表明,对抽象概念的理解必须基于感觉运动的加工,符合概念隐喻理论的基本假设。

李恒 . ( 2016).

时空隐喻的心理现实性:手势和手语的视角

心理科学, 39( 5), 1080-1085.

[本文引用: 1]

李恒, 张积家 . ( 2016).

听觉任务下汉语母语者对不同类型时间句的加工

心理学报, 48( 6), 617-624.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

采用听觉刺激-口头问答任务考察汉语母语者对指示性时间句和顺序性时间句的加工。结果表明:(1)对指示性时间句,被试的加工不受听觉刺激的呈现位置影响,时间概念与空间知觉之间无法形成对应的自动化联结;(2)对顺序性时间句,汉语母语者对出现在前方的"较早"事件和出现在后方的"较晚"事件反应快,出现了隐喻一致性效应,即汉语母语者更倾向于用"前"表示过去,用"后"表示未来。整个研究表明,对于汉语母语者而言,"自我参照点"和"时间参照点"两大时间隐喻系统都具有心理现实性,二者之间的区别在于是否有运动经验参与,并由此造成汉语母语者在听觉任务中对指示性时间句和顺序性时间句加工的差异。

刘馨元, 张志杰 . ( 2016).

不同时间关注点下的空间-时间联合编码效应

心理科学, 39( 2), 279-284.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

本研究旨在探讨不同时间关注特征人群的空间-时间联合编码效应是否存在差异。采用时间关注点量表将被试分为关注过去组和关注未来组,进行反应区分实验。实验以时间词作为启动刺激,目标刺激是随后出现在屏幕左或右侧的圆点。结果发现,不同时间关注点人群在不同时间词、空间位置实验条件下的反应不同,关注过去组对左侧空间反应更快,关注未来组在未来词启动下的反应时更短。表明不同时间关注点人群分别在时间和空间维度上存在差异,没有直接发现相反的时间-空间表征形式,但可能具有该趋势。这种区别可能由于注意分配上的差异,在一定程度上支持"左-右"轴上时间概念加工的时间关注点假设。

叶浩生 . ( 2010).

具身认知: 认知心理学的新取向

心理科学进展, 18( 5), 705-710.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

具身认知强调身体在认知的实现中发挥着关键作用。其中心含义包括:(1)认知过程的进行方式和步骤实际上是被身体的物理属性所决定的;(2)认知的内容是身体提供的;(3)认知、身体、环境是一体的,认知存在于大脑,大脑存在于身体,身体存在于环境。具身认知最初仅仅是一种哲学思考,有深刻的哲学思想渊源,但是现在这种哲学思考已经开始走向实证领域,实验的认知心理学家开始从具身的角度看待认知,形成了具身认知研究思潮。但是具身认知研究也面临着许多亟待解决的问题。

Barsalou, L. W . ( 1999).

Perceptual symbol systems

Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22( 4), 577-609.

[本文引用: 1]

Barsalou, L. W . ( 2016).

On staying grounded and avoiding quixotic dead ends

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23( 4), 1122-1142.

URL     PMID:27112560      [本文引用: 1]

Abstract The 15 articles in this special issue on The Representation of Concepts illustrate the rich variety of theoretical positions and supporting research that characterize the area. Although much agreement exists among contributors, much disagreement exists as well, especially about the roles of grounding and abstraction in conceptual processing. I first review theoretical approaches raised in these articles that I believe are Quixotic dead ends, namely, approaches that are principled and inspired but likely to fail. In the process, I review various theories of amodal symbols, their distortions of grounded theories, and fallacies in the evidence used to support them. Incorporating further contributions across articles, I then sketch a theoretical approach that I believe is likely to be successful, which includes grounding, abstraction, flexibility, explaining classic conceptual phenomena, and making contact with real-world situations. This account further proposes that (1) a key element of grounding is neural reuse, (2) abstraction takes the forms of multimodal compression, distilled abstraction, and distributed linguistic representation (but not amodal symbols), and (3) flexible context-dependent representations are a hallmark of conceptual processing.

Bender, A., & Beller, S. (2014).

Mapping spatial frames of reference onto time: A review of theoretical accounts and empirical findings

Cognition, 132, 342-382.

URL     PMID:24873738      [本文引用: 1]

When speaking and reasoning about time, people around the world tend to do so with vocabulary and concepts borrowed from the domain of space. This raises the question of whether the cross-linguistic variability found for spatial representations, and the principles on which these are based, may also carry over to the domain of time. Real progress in addressing this question presupposes a taxonomy for the possible conceptualizations in one domain and its consistent and comprehensive mapping onto the other—a challenge that has been taken up only recently and is far from reaching consensus. This article aims at systematizing the theoretical and empirical advances in this field, with a focus on accounts that deal with frames of reference (FoRs). It reviews eight such accounts by identifying their conceptual ingredients and principles for space–time mapping, and it explores the potential for their integration. To evaluate their feasibility, data from some thirty empirical studies, conducted with speakers of sixteen different languages, are then scrutinized. This includes a critical assessment of the methods employed, a summary of the findings for each language group, and a (re-)analysis of the data in view of the theoretical questions. The discussion relates these findings to research on the mental time line, and explores the psychological reality of temporal FoRs, the degree of cross-domain consistency in FoR adoption, the role of deixis, and the sources and extent of space–time mapping more generally.

Boroditsky, L. (2000).

Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors

Cognition, 75, 1-28.

URL     PMID:10815775      [本文引用: 1]

The present paper evaluates the claim that abstract conceptual domains are structured through metaphorical mappings from domains grounded directly in experience. In particular, the paper asks whether the abstract domain of time gets its relational structure from the more concrete domain of space. Relational similarities between space and time are outlined along with several explanations of how these similarities may have arisen. Three experiments designed to distinguish between these explanations are described. The results indicate that (1) the domains of space and time do share conceptual structure, (2) spatial relational information is just as useful for thinking about time as temporal information, and (3) with frequent use, mappings between space and time come to be stored in the domain of time and so thinking about time does not necessarily require access to spatial schemas. These findings provide some of the first empirical evidence for Metaphoric Structuring. It appears that abstract domains such as time are indeed shaped by metaphorical mappings from more concrete and experiential domains such as space.

Boroditsky, L. (2001).

Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers' conceptions of time

Cognitive Psychology, 43( 1), 1-22.

URL     PMID:11487292      [本文引用: 1]

Abstract Does the language you speak affect how you think about the world? This question is taken up in three experiments. English and Mandarin talk about time differently--English predominantly talks about time as if it were horizontal, while Mandarin also commonly describes time as vertical. This difference between the two languages is reflected in the way their speakers think about time. In one study, Mandarin speakers tended to think about time vertically even when they were thinking for English (Mandarin speakers were faster to confirm that March comes earlier than April if they had just seen a vertical array of objects than if they had just seen a horizontal array, and the reverse was true for English speakers). Another study showed that the extent to which Mandarin-English bilinguals think about time vertically is related to how old they were when they first began to learn English. In another experiment native English speakers were taught to talk about time using vertical spatial terms in a way similar to Mandarin. On a subsequent test, this group of English speakers showed the same bias to think about time vertically as was observed with Mandarin speakers. It is concluded that (1) language is a powerful tool in shaping thought about abstract domains and (2) one's native language plays an important role in shaping habitual thought (e.g., how one tends to think about time) but does not entirely determine one's thinking in the strong Whorfian sense. Copyright 2001 Academic Press.

Boroditsky, L., & Ramscar, M. (2002).

The roles of body and mind in abstract thought

Psychological Science, 13( 2), 185-189.

URL     PMID:11934006      [本文引用: 1]

Abstract How are people able to think about things they have never seen or touched? We demonstrate that abstract knowledge can be built analogically from more experience-based knowledge. People's understanding of the abstract domain of time, for example, is so intimately dependent on the more experience-based domain of space that when people make an air journey or wait in a lunch line, they also unwittingly (and dramatically) change their thinking about time. Further, our results suggest that it is not sensorimotor spatial experience per se that influences people's thinking about time, but rather people's representations of and thinking about their spatial experience.

Casasanto, D. (2016).

Temporal language and temporal thinking may not go hand in hand. In B. Lewandowska- Tomaszczyk (Ed.), Conceptualizations of time( pp. 169- 186)

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

[本文引用: 2]

Casasanto, D., & Bottini, R. (2014).

Mirror reading can reverse the flow of time

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143( 2), 473-479.

URL     PMID:23773158      [本文引用: 1]

Abstract How does culture shape our concepts? Across many cultures, people conceptualize time as if it flows along a horizontal timeline, but the direction of this implicit timeline is culture specific: Later times are on the right in some cultures but on the left in others. Here we investigated whether experience reading can determine the direction and orientation of the mental timeline, independent of other cultural and linguistic factors. Dutch speakers performed space-time congruity tasks with the instructions and stimuli written in either standard, mirror-reversed, or rotated orthography. When participants judged temporal phrases written in standard orthography, their reaction times were consistent with a rightward-directed mental timeline, but after brief exposure to mirror-reversed orthography, their mental timelines were reversed. When standard orthography was rotated 90 clockwise (downward) or counterclockwise (upward), participants' mental timelines were rotated, accordingly. Reading can play a causal role in shaping people's implicit time representations. Exposure to a new orthography can change the direction and orientation of the mental timeline within minutes, even when the new space-time mapping directly contradicts the reader's usual mapping. To account for this representational flexibility, we propose the hierarchical mental metaphors theory, according to which culturally conditioned mappings between space and time are specific instances of a more general mapping, which is conditioned by the relationship between space and time in the physical world. Conceptualizations of time are culture specific at one level of analysis but may be universal at another.

Casasanto, D., & Jasmin, K. (2012).

The hands of time: Temporal gestures in English speakers

Cognitive Linguistics, 23( 4), 643-674.Chen, J. Y., 427-436.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Do English speakers think about time the way they talk about it? In spoken English, time appears to flow along the sagittal axis (front/back): the future is ahead and the past is behind us. Here we show that when asked to gesture about past and future events deliberately, English speakers often use the sagittal axis, as language suggests they should. By contrast, when producing co-speech gestures spontaneously, they use the lateral axis (left/right) overwhelmingly more often, gesturing leftward for earlier times and rightward for later times. This left-right mapping of time is consistent with the flow of time on calendars and graphs in English-speaking cultures, but is completely absent from conventional spoken metaphors. English speakers gesture on the lateral axis even when they are using front/back metaphors in their co-occurring speech. This speech-gesture dissociation is not due to any lack of lexical or constructional resources to spatialize time laterally in language, nor to any lack of physical resources to spatialize time sagittally in gesture. We propose that when speakers are describing sequences of events, they often use neither the Moving Ego nor Moving Time perspectives. Rather, they adopt a -oving Attention perspective, which is grounded in patterns of interaction with cultural artifacts, not in patterns of interaction with the natural environment. We suggest possible pragmatic, kinematic, and mnemonic motivations for the use of a lateral mental timeline in gesture and in thought. Gestures reveal an implicit spatial conceptualization of time that cannot be inferred from language.

Chen, J. Y., & O’Seaghdha, P. G . ( 2013).

Do Mandarin and English speakers think about time differently? Review of existing evidence and some new data

Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 41, 338-358.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

Abstract Do Mandarin and English speakers think about time differently? The seminal work by Boroditsky (2001) claimed they do, but the claim did not stand in three failed replications (Chen 2007; January and Kako 2007; Tse and Altarriba 2008). Recently, new data from different tasks were interpreted as further support of the claim (Boroditsky, Fuhrman and McCormick, 2011; Fuhrman et al. 2011). We evaluate the claim, its logical ground, and the existing evidence, including results from the original spatial priming task, the spatial projection (of temporal events) task, and the temporal judgment task. A reasonable conclusion from this line of research is that there might be a relationship between temporal cognition and specific language experience, but the relationship is a complex one which varies with the task, the language of instructions, the cultural shade of the materials, the location of test, the nature and extent of bilingualism, in addition to language and directionality of print. Some of the tasks are easier to replicate than others, and when replicable, the evidence they yield requires careful evaluations, interpretations, and qualifications. Under scrutiny, the evidence appears weak that Mandarin and English speakers think about time in a categorically different way because they use spatial metaphors differently to express time.

Cienki, A. J . ( 1998).

Metaphoric gestures and some of their relations to verbal metaphoric expressions. In J.-P. Koenig (Ed.), Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap( pp. 189-204)

Stanford, California: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

[本文引用: 1]

Clark H. H. ( 1973). Space, time, semantics and the child. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and acquisition of language (pp. 27-63). New York, NY: Academic Press.

[本文引用: 1]

de la Fuente J., Santiago J., Román, A, Dumitrache C., & Casasanto D . ( 2014).

When you think about it, your past is in front of you: How culture shapes spatial conceptions of time

Psychological Science, 25, 1682-1690.

URL     [本文引用: 10]

Duffy, S. E., & Feist, M. I . ( 2014).

Individual differences in the interpretation of ambiguous statements about time

Cognitive Linguistics, 25( 1), 29-54.

[本文引用: 1]

Eikmeier V., Alex-Ruf S., Maienborn C., & Ulrich R . ( 2015).

How strongly linked are mental time and space along the left-right axis?

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 1878-1883.

URL     PMID:25961360      [本文引用: 1]

Different lines of research suggest that our mental representations of time and space are linked, though the strength of this linkage has only recently been addressed for the front-back mental timeline (Eikmeier, Schr枚ter, Maienborn, Alex-Ruf, & Ulrich, 2013). The present study extends this investigation to the left-right mental timeline. In contrast to what was found in the cited previous study, the obtained space-time congruency effects were smaller than benchmark stimulus-response congruency effects in control conditions. This pattern of results suggests that the representations of time and space are less strongly linked for the left-right axis than for the back-front axis. (PsycINFO Database Record.

Evans, V. (2004).

The structure of time: Language, meaning, and temporal cognition

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

[本文引用: 1]

Fuhrman O., McCormick K., Chen E., Jiang H. D., Shu D. F., Mao S. M., & Boroditsky L . ( 2011).

How linguistic and cultural forces shape conceptions of time: English and Mandarin time in 3D

Cognitive Science, 35, 1305-1328.

URL     PMID:21884222      [本文引用: 1]

In this paper we examine how English and Mandarin speakers think about time, and we test how the patterns of thinking in the two groups relate to patterns in linguistic and cultural experience. In Mandarin, vertical spatial metaphors are used more frequently to talk about time than they are in English; English relies primarily on horizontal terms. We present results from two tasks comparing English and Mandarin speakers090005 temporal reasoning. The tasks measure how people spatialize time in three-dimensional space, including the sagittal (front/back), transverse (left/right), and vertical (up/down) axes. Results of Experiment 1 show that people automatically create spatial representations in the course of temporal reasoning, and these implicit spatializations differ in accordance with patterns in language, even in a non-linguistic task. Both groups showed evidence of a left-to-right representation of time, in accordance with writing direction, but only Mandarin speakers showed a vertical top-to-bottom pattern for time (congruent with vertical spatiotemporal metaphors in Mandarin). Results of Experiment 2 confirm and extend these findings, showing that bilinguals090005 representations of time depend on both long-term and proximal aspects of language experience. Participants who were more proficient in Mandarin were more likely to arrange time vertically (an effect of previous language experience). Further, bilinguals were more likely to arrange time vertically when they were tested in Mandarin than when they were tested in English (an effect of immediate linguistic context).

Gibbs R. W.,Jr.( 2017). Metaphor Wars: Conceptual metaphors in human life Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Conceptual metaphors in human life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[本文引用: 1]

Gu Y., Zheng Y. Q., & Swerts M . ( 2016). Which is in front of Chinese people: Past or Future? A study on Chinese people’s space-time mapping. In A. Papafragou, D. Grodner, D. Mirman, & J. C. Trueswell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th annual conference of the cognitive science society(pp. 2603-2608). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

[本文引用: 4]

Haser, V. (2005). Metaphor, metonymy, and experientialist philosophy: Challenging cognitive semantics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

[本文引用: 1]

Hendricks, R. K., & Boroditsky, L. (2017).

New space-time metaphors foster new nonlinguistic representations

Topics in Cognitive Science, 9, 800-818.

URL     PMID:28635107      [本文引用: 1]

react-text: 397 In this paper we examine how English and Mandarin speakers think about time, and we test how the patterns of thinking in the two groups relate to patterns in linguistic and cultural experience. In Mandarin, vertical spatial metaphors are used more frequently to talk about time than they are in English; English relies primarily on horizontal terms. We present results from two tasks comparing... /react-text react-text: 398 /react-text [Show full abstract]

January, D., & Kako, E. (2007).

Re-evaluating evidence for linguistic relativity: Reply to Boroditsky (2001)

Cognition, 104, 417-426.

URL     PMID:16914131      [本文引用: 1]

Abstract Six unsuccessful attempts at replicating a key finding in the linguistic relativity literature [Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers' conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 1-22] are reported. In addition to these empirical issues in replicating the original finding, theoretical issues present in the original report are discussed. In sum, we conclude that Boroditsky (2001) provides no support for the Whorfian hypothesis.

Ji L. J., Guo T. Y., Zhang Z. Y., & Messervey D . ( 2009).

Looking into the past: Cultural differences in perception and representation of past information

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 761-769.

URL     PMID:19309200      [本文引用: 1]

Abstract The authors investigated cultural differences in the way people perceive and represent temporal information. It was hypothesized that Chinese would attend to the past information more than would Canadians. In Studies 1 and 2, Canadian and Chinese participants read a description of a theft along with a list of behaviors that occurred in the past or present. Chinese participants rated behaviors that had taken place in the remote and recent past as more relevant to solving the case than did Canadians. Study 3 showed that Chinese participants recalled greater detail about past events than did Canadians. Studies 4A and 4B showed that Chinese perceived past events as being closer to the present than did Canadians, suggesting that Chinese had a greater awareness of the past. Overall, Chinese attended to a greater range of past information than did Canadians, which has significant theoretical and practical implications. (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved.

Lakoff G. , & Johnson, M.( 1980) . Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[本文引用: 2]

Laudau, M. J . ( 2016).

Conceptual metaphor in social psychology: The poetics of everyday life

New York, NY: Routledge.

[本文引用: 1]

Li, H. (2017).

Barbara Lewandowska-tomaszczyk: Conceptualizations of time

Cognitive Linguistics, 28( 2), 361-370.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Time is often conceptualized in terms of space. For instance, the phrase “to take a step back in time” metaphorically implies a mental time travel toward the past as well as an egocentric backward motion in physical space. A prevalent representation of temporal concepts, indeed, construes the past and the future as respectively behind and in front of the ego. The egocentric Mental Time Line... [Show full abstract]

Li, H., & Cao, Y. (2017).

Personal attitudes toward time: The relationship between temporal focus, space-time mappings and real life experiences

Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 58( 3), 193-198.

URL     PMID:28266035      [本文引用: 3]

Abstract What influences how people implicitly associate "past" and "future" with "front" and "back?" Whereas previous research has shown that cultural attitudes toward time play a role in modulating space-time mappings in people's mental models (de la Fuente, Santiago, Rom n, Dumitrache & Casasanto, 2014), we investigated real life experiences as potential additional influences on these implicit associations. Participants within the same single culture, who are engaged in different intermediate-term educational experiences (Study 1), long-term living experiences (Study 2), and short-term visiting experiences (Study 3), showed their distinct differences in temporal focus, thereby influencing their implicit spatializations of time. Results across samples suggest that personal attitudes toward time related to real life experiences may influence people's space-time mappings. The findings we report on shed further light on the high flexibility of human conceptualization system. While culture may exert an important influence on temporal focus, a person's conceptualization of time may be attributed to a culmination of factors. 2017 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Li, H., & Cao, Y. (2018).

The hope of the future: The experience of pregnancy influences women’s implicit space-time mappings

The Journal of Social Psychology, 158, 152-156.

URL     PMID:28375781      [本文引用: 4]

According to the Temporal Focus Hypothesis (TFH), space–time mappings in people’s minds are shaped by their attentional focus. Previous research has shown that numerous cultural and individual factors underpinning temporal focus may contribute to the direction of space–time mappings in people’s mental models. However, the role of time of day in shaping spatial conceptions of time has not been... [Show full abstract]

McGlone, M. S . ( 2007).

What is the explanatory value of a conceptual metaphor?

Language and Communication, 27( 2), 109-126.

URL    

Lakoff [Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1987.] and other “conceptual metaphor” theorists have argued that our use and understanding of figurative language is mediated by unconscious metaphoric correspondences that structure human concepts. Communication scholars have employed the conceptual metaphor framework to infer attitudes and beliefs from the figurative expressions people use to describe their personal experiences. However, these scholars rarely scrutinize the framework’s assumptions, many of which have been vigorously challenged in other disciplines. In this article, I critically assess the explanatory value of the “conceptual metaphor” construct and review the empirical evidence for and against it. Based on this assessment, I conclude that despite its important atmospheric influence, the conceptual metaphor framework has not fared well as an account of conceptual structure or a model of figurative language understanding.

McNeill, D. ( 1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[本文引用: 2]

Meier B. P., Schnall S., Schwarz N., & Bargh J. A . ( 2012).

Embodiment in social psychology

Topics in Cognitive Science, 4( 4), 705-716.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Miles L. K., Nind L. K., & Macrae C. N . ( 2010).

Moving through time

Psychological Science, 21( 2), 222-223.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Moore K. E. ( 2014). The spatial language of time. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Press.

[本文引用: 1]

Murphy, G. L . ( 1996).

On metaphoric representation

Cognition, 60( 2), 173-204.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Núñez, R., & Cooperrider, K. (2013).

The tangle of space and time in human cognition

Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17( 5), 220-229.

URL     PMID:23608363      [本文引用: 1]

Everyday concepts of duration, of sequence, and of past, present, and future are fundamental to how humans make sense of experience. In culture after culture, converging evidence from language, co-speech gesture, and behavioral tasks suggests that humans handle these elusive yet indispensable notions by construing them spatially. Where do these spatial construals come from and why do they take the particular, sometimes peculiar, spatial forms that they do? As researchers across the cognitive sciences pursue these questions on different levels--cultural, developmental--in diverse populations and with new methodologies, clear answers will depend upon a shared and nuanced set of theoretical distinctions. Time is not a monolith, but rather a mosaic of construals with distinct properties and origins.

Núñez, 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( 3), 401-450.

URL     PMID:21702821      [本文引用: 2]

Abstract Cognitive research on metaphoric concepts of time has focused on differences between moving Ego and moving time models, but even more basic is the contrast between Ego- and temporal-reference-point models. Dynamic models appear to be quasi-universal cross-culturally, as does the generalization that in Ego-reference-point models, FUTURE IS IN FRONT OF EGO and PAST IS IN BACK OF EGO. The Aymara language instead has a major static model of time wherein FUTURE IS BEHIND EGO and PAST IS IN FRONT OF EGO; linguistic and gestural data give strong confirmation of this unusual culture-specific cognitive pattern. Gestural data provide crucial information unavailable to purely linguistic analysis, suggesting that when investigating conceptual systems both forms of expression should be analyzed complementarily. Important issues in embodied cognition are raised: how fully shared are bodily grounded motivations for universal cognitive patterns, what makes a rare pattern emerge, and what are the cultural entailments of such patterns? 2006 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Rinaldi L., Locati F., Parolin L., Bernardi N. F., & Girelli L . ( 2016).

Walking on a mental time line: Temporal processing affects step movements along the sagittal space

Cortex, 78, 170-173.

URL     PMID:27049003      [本文引用: 1]

Abstract Time is often conceptualized in terms of space. For instance, the phrase -o take a step back in time metaphorically implies a mental time travel toward the past as well as an egocentric backward motion in physical space. A prevalent representation of temporal concepts, indeed, construes the past and the future as respectively behind and in front of the ego. The egocentric Mental Time Line (MTL) is supposed to originate from our walking experience in the physical world, though direct evidence supporting this representation is still needed. On these grounds, here we reasoned that if the egocentric MTL originates from walking, temporal processing should affect step movements along the sagittal space (i.e., both in the front and in the back space). By recording whole-body movement kinematics, we show that participants initiated faster steps backward in response to past- than to future-related words, whereas they initiated faster steps forward in response to future- than to past-related words. These results provide striking evidence in support of the moving ego metaphor of time, according to which we would approach future events and leave them behind, as moving through a mental time line projected on a physical space.

Sell, A. J., & Kaschak, M. P . ( 2011).

Processing time shifts affects the execution of motor responses

Brain and Language, 117( 1), 39-44.

URL     PMID:20696469      [本文引用: 1]

We explore whether time shifts in text comprehension are represented spatially. Participants read sentences involving past or future events and made sensibility judgment responses in one of two ways: (1) moving toward or away from their body and (2) pressing the toward or away buttons without moving. Previous work suggests that spatial compatibility effects should be observed, where the future is mapped onto responses away from the body, and the past is mapped onto responses toward the body. These effects were observed, but only when participants were moving to make their responses, and only for larger time shifts (e.g., a month).

Shipp A. J., Edwards J. R., & Lambert L. S . ( 2009).

Conceptualization and measurement of temporal focus: The subjective experience of the past, present, and future

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110( 1), 1-22.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Temporal focus is the attention individuals devote to thinking about the past, present, and future, and the concept is important because it affects how people incorporate perceptions about past experiences, current situations, and future expectations into their attitudes, cognitions, and behavior. However, temporal focus has not been clearly defined nor situated in a nomological network of constructs. In addition, existing measures of temporal focus suffer from various shortcomings. In this paper, we advance the concept of temporal focus by critically examining its conceptualization, developing a new measure of temporal focus (Temporal Focus Scale; TFS), and evaluating the validity (i.e., construct, convergent, discriminant, nomological, and predictive validity) of the TFS across four studies. We conclude that understanding how individuals focus their attention toward the past, present, and future clarifies their responses to explicit and implicit temporal information, which suggests that a variety of research streams would benefit from incorporating the concept of temporal focus.

Sinha C., Sinha V. D. S., & Zinken J . ( 2016).

When time is not space: The social and linguistic construction of time intervals and temporal event relations in an Amazonian culture

In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), Conceptualizations of time( pp. 151-186). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

It is widely assumed that there is a natural, prelinguistic conceptual domain of time whose linguistic organization is universally structured via metaphoric mapping from the lexicon and grammar of space and motion. We challenge this assumption on the basis of our research on the Amondawa (Tupi Kawahib) language and culture of Amazonia. Using both observational data and structured field linguistic tasks, we show that linguistic space-time mapping at the constructional level is not a feature of the Amondawa language, and is not employed by Amondawa speakers (when speaking Amondawa). Amondawa does not recruit its extensive inventory of terms and constructions for spatial motion and location to express temporal relations. Amondawa also lacks a numerically based calendric system. To account for these data, and in opposition to a Universal Space-Time Mapping Hypothesis, we propose a Mediated Mapping Hypothesis, which accords causal importance to the numerical and artefact-based construction of time-based (as opposed to event-based) time interval systems.

Sinha C., Sinha V. D. S., Zinken J., & Sampaio W . ( 2011).

When time is not space: The social and linguistic construction of time intervals and temporal event relations in an Amazonian culture

Language and Cognition, 3( 1), 137-169.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

It is widely assumed that there is a natural, prelinguistic conceptual domain of time whose linguistic organization is universally structured via metaphoric mapping from the lexicon and grammar of space and motion. We challenge this assumption on the basis of our research on the Amondawa (Tupi Kawahib) language and culture of Amazonia. Using both observational data and structured field linguistic tasks, we show that linguistic space-time mapping at the constructional level is not a feature of the Amondawa language, and is not employed by Amondawa speakers (when speaking Amondawa). Amondawa does not recruit its extensive inventory of terms and constructions for spatial motion and location to express temporal relations. Amondawa also lacks a numerically based calendric system. To account for these data, and in opposition to a Universal Space-Time Mapping Hypothesis, we propose a Mediated Mapping Hypothesis, which accords causal importance to the numerical and artefact-based construction of time-based (as opposed to event-based) time interval systems.

Stocker K., Hartmann M., Martarelli C. S., & Mast F. W . ( 2016).

Eye movements reveal mental looking through time

Cognitive Science, 40( 7), 1648-1670.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Abstract People often make use of a spatial “mental time line” to represent events in time. We investigated whether the eyes follow such a mental time line during online language comprehension of sentences that refer to the past, present, and future. Participants' eye movements were measured on a blank screen while they listened to these sentences. Saccade direction revealed that the future is mapped higher up in space than the past. Moreover, fewer saccades were made when two events are simultaneously taking place at the present moment compared to two events that are happening in different points in time. This is the first evidence that oculomotor correlates reflect mental looking along an abstract invisible time line during online language comprehension about time. Our results support the idea that observing eye movements is likely to “detect” invisible spatial scaffoldings which are involved in cognitively processing abstract meaning, even when the abstract meaning lacks an explicit spatial correlate. Theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.

Sullivan, K., & Bui, L. T . ( 2016).

With the future coming up behind them: Evidence that time approaches from behind in Vietnamese

Cognitive Linguistics, 27( 2), 205-233.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Vietnamese speakers can describe the future as behind them and gesture forwards to indicate the past, which suggests they use a conceptual model of Time in which the future is behind and the past is in front. This type of model has previously been shown to be pervasive only among older speakers of Aymara in the Andes (Nú09ez and Sweetser 2006. With the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Aymara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time.Cognitive Science30. 401–450). Whereas Time in the Aymara model does not “move”, the present data show that Time in Vietnamese can “approach” from behind the Ego and “continue forward” into the past. To our knowledge, no other language has been identified with a model where Time moves from behind Ego to in front. Recognition of this model in Vietnamese will open up new research opportunities, particularly since the model does not seem to be endangered in Vietnamese.

Torralbo A., Santiago J., & Lupiáñez J . ( 2006).

Flexible conceptual projection of time onto spatial frames of reference

Cognitive Science, 30, 745-757.

URL     PMID:21702834      [本文引用: 1]

Flexibility in conceptual projection constitutes one of the most challenging issues in the embodiment and conceptual metaphor literatures. We sketch a theoretical proposal that places the burden of the explanation on attentional dynamics in interaction with mental models in working memory that are constrained to be maximally coherent. A test of this theory is provided in the context of the conceptual projection of time onto the domain of space. Participants categorized words presented at different spatial locations (back090009front, left090009right) as referring to the past or to the future. Responses were faster when the irrelevant word location was congruent with the back090009past, front090009future metaphoric mapping. Moreover, when a new highly task-relevant spatial frame of reference was introduced, it changed the projection of past and future onto space in a way that was congruent with the new frame (past was now projected to left space and future to right space), as predicted by the theory. This study shows that there is substantial flexibility in conceptual projection and opens a venue to study metaphoric variation across tasks, individuals, and cultures as the result of attentional dynamics.

Tse, C. S., & Altarriba, J. (2008).

Evidence against linguistic relativity in Chinese and English: A case study of spatial and temporal metaphors

Journal of Cognition & Culture, 8( 3), 335-357.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

To talk about time, English speakers often use horizontal spatial metaphors whereas Chinese speakers use both vertical and horizontal spatial metaphors. Boroditsky (2001) showed that while Chinese-English bilinguals were faster to verify a temporal target like June comes earlier than August after they had seen a vertical spatial prime rather than a horizontal spatial prime, English monolinguals showed the reverse pattern, thus supporting the linguistic relativity hypothesis. This finding was not conceptually replicated in January and Kako's (2007) six experiments for English monolinguals. In the current experiment, we failed to conceptually replicate her English monolinguals' findings: both Chinese-English bilinguals and English monolinguals were faster to verify the sentences after seeing a vertical spatial prime than a horizontal spatial prime. While we replicated Boroditsky's findings, in part, for our Chinese-English bilinguals, the similarity in the pattern of findings for both Chinese-English bilinguals and English monolinguals argues against the linguistic relativity hypothesis.

Walker, E., & Cooperrider, K. (2016).

The Continuity of metaphor: Evidence from temporal gestures

Cognitive Science, 40, 481-495.

URL     PMID:26059310     

Reasoning about bedrock abstract concepts such as time, number, and valence relies on spatial metaphor and often on multiple spatial metaphors for a single concept. Previous research has documented, for instance, both future-in-front and future-to-right metaphors for time in English speakers. It is often assumed that these metaphors, which appear to have distinct experiential bases, remain distinct in online temporal reasoning. In two studies we demonstrate that, contra this assumption, people systematically combine these metaphors. Evidence for this combination was found in both directly elicited (Study 1) and spontaneous co-speech (Study 2) gestures about time. These results provide first support for the hypothesis that the metaphorical representation of time, and perhaps other abstract domains as well, involves the continuous co-activation of multiple metaphors rather than the selection of only one.

Walker, E. J., & Núñez, R. (2017).

Speaking, gesturing, reasoning: Methods and issues in the study

In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), Conceptualization of time(pp. 67-84). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

[本文引用: 2]

Waliński, J. T . ( 2016).

Reflection of temporal horizon in linguistic performance

In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), Conceptualization of time(pp. 273-293). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

Walker E. J., Bergen B. K., & Núñez R . ( 2017).

The spatial alignment of time: Differences in alignment of deictic and sequence time along the sagittal and lateral axes

Acta Psychologica, 175, 13-20.

URL     PMID:28259726     

People use space in a variety of ways to structure their thoughts about time. The present report focuses on the different ways that space is employed when reasoning about deictic (past/future relationships) and sequence (earlier/later relationships) time. In the first study, we show that deictic and sequence time are aligned along the lateral axis in a manner consistent with previous work, with past and earlier events associated with left space and future and later events associated with right space. However, the alignment of time with space is different along the sagittal axis. Participants associated future events and earlier events—not later events—with the space in front of their body and past and later events with the space behind, consistent with the sagittal spatial terms (e.g., ahead, in front of) that we use to talk about deictic and sequence time. In the second study, we show that these associations between sequence time and sagittal space are sensitive to person-perspective. This suggests that the particular space-time associations observed in English speakers are influenced by a variety of different spatial properties, including spatial location and perspective.

Whorf B. L. (2000). The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. In J. B. Carroll (Ed.), Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (pp. 134-159). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[本文引用: 1]

版权所有 © 《心理科学进展》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn

/