Representation of Mental Timeline in the Language Structure of Persian Speakers

Document Type : Research

Authors

1 Asistant Professor at Department of TEFL, Khorramshahr International Branch, Islamic Azad University, Khorramshahr, Iran

2 Associate Professor at Department of Linguistics, Payame Noor University, Iran

3 Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics, Abadan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Abadan, Iran

4 Assistant Professor, TEFL Department, Farhangian University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran

Abstract

1.INTRODUCTION
One of the metaphors that has gained a lot of attention is “Time is Space”. This Metaphor is based on a theory that we perceive an abstract concept like time through a concrete concept like space and conceptualize it in our mind and language. To this end, the present research aims to examine space-time mapping in Persian based on conceptual metaphor theory proposed by Johnson & Lakoff to find out temporal frames of reference and their sources in Persian. To describe the relations, people have to choose a frame of reference, which is a coordinated system to describe relations between the movements of objects or events. Different cultures and speech communities have different construals of time. Three frames of reference to be investigated in Persian are adopted based on Levison’s (2006) model: Absolute, Intrinsic, and Relative. Other frames of reference to be examined are horizontal axes including sagittal (front to back and back to front) adopted from looking direction and linguistic metaphors which depict that future is front and past is back and lateral axis: right to left consistent with Persian writing/reading direction or left to right consistent with mathematics writing direction; however, vertical axis includes up-down and bottom-up axis as well as sagittal axis front to back and back to front.
 
2.METHOD
As a result, three tasks were designed for 137 male and female students ranging from 18 to 30 years of age at Islamic Azad University of Khorramshahr and Abadan Medical University. 
Task 1: Arrangement of temporal stickers/tokens
Four time expressions including morning, afternoon, evening, and night were labeled on four stickers respectively. Participants had to arrange them on the table. No reference point was given.
In another similar task yesterday, today, and tomorrow were labeled on three stickers. Again, they had to arrange them on the table, however, ‘today’ regarded as the reference point.
Task 2: Picture arrangement
Participants were asked to arrange seven sets of three or four pictures that illustrate the growing stages of living beings such as chicken, beans, and human, as well as events like seasons, meals, building a tower, and presidents. The pictures had to be arranged on a table in sequence from the earliest to the latest stage. Meals, which are breakfast, lunch, and dinner, were given a reference point with lunch.
Task 3: Co-speech gesture
Two basic temporal concepts were chosen to examine frames of reference in Persian: tomorrow and yesterday. Participants were asked to use body gestures to demonstrate yesterday and tomorrow.
 
3.RESULTS
Task 1: Arrangement of temporal stickers/tokens
Two arrangements for both yesterday, today, and tomorrow as well as morning, afternoon, evening, and night illustrate that  horizontal-lateral right to left pattern has the highest frequency of occurrence which is compatible with Persian writing direction. This frame of reference also demonstrates a timeline where right is earlier and left is later.
In addition, both tasks demonstrate an absolute frame of reference.
Task 2: Picture arrangement
All the seven task results point out that horizontal-lateral right to left pattern, that is % 61.62, has the highest frequency of occurrence which is compatible with Persian writing direction. Like task 2, this frame of reference also demonstrates a timeline where right is earlier and left is later. Meals had an intrinsic and the other 6 tasks had an absolute frame of reference.
Task 3: co-speech gesture
Horizontal-lateral right to left pattern gestures compatible with Persian writing direction, that is 46%, were used to act out future gestures; and horizontal-sagittal gestures incompatible with looking direction, walking direction, and linguistic metaphor were used to demonstrate yesterday.
Both tasks also show an absolute frame of reference.
Sample’s percentage and frequency of occurrence illustrated that lateral axis from right to left adopted from Persian writing direction; sagittal axis back to front adopted from walking direction, looking direction, linguistic metaphors; lateral axis from left to right adopted from mathematics writing direction are the main sources of adoption of abstract temporal concepts in Persian. In addition, absolute frame of reference was the major frame of reference in all tasks. Intrinsic and relative frames of references were also respectively used by the participants.
 
4.CONCLUSION
This research implied that the adopted frame of reference and the type of sagittal or lateral axis are strongly influenced by the type of task, pattern and design of the experiment, the given concepts, language and linguistic metaphors, and cultural artifacts. Although biological evolution may have laid the groundwork for the basic spatial construal of temporal experience in the broadest sense, it is cultural evolution that has determined its complexities and specificities.

Keywords


  1. Bender, A., & Beller, S. (2014). Mapping spatial frames of reference onto time: A review of theoretical accounts and empirical findings. Cognition, 132(3), 342-382.
  2. Bennardo, G., Beller, S., & Bender, A. (2010). Temporal frames of reference: Conceptual analysis and empirical evidence from German, English, Mandarin Chinese and Tongan. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 10(3-4), 283-307.
  3. Bergen, B., & Chan Lau, T. T. (2012). Writing direction affects how people map space onto time. Frontiers in psychology, 3, 109, 1-5.
  4. Bonato, M., Priftis, K., Marenzi, R., Umiltà, C., & Zorzi, M. (2012). Deficits of contralesional awareness: A case study on what paper-and-pencil tests neglect. Neuropsychology, 26(1), 20-36.
  5. Bonato, M., Zorzi, M., & Umiltà, C. (2012). When time is space: evidence for a mental time line. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(10), 2257-2273.
  6. Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers'' conceptions of time. Cognitive psychology, 43(1), 1-22.
  7. Bostan, İ., Börütecene, A., Özcan, O., & Göksun, T. (2016). Temporal expressions in speech and gesture. In A. Papafragou, D. Grodner, D. Mirman, & J.C. Trueswell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1871-1876). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
  8. Brown, P. (2012). Time and space in Tzeltal: is the future uphill? Frontiers in psychology, 3, 212, 1-11.
  9. Casasanto, D., & Jasmin, K. (2012). The hands of time: Temporal gestures in English speakers. Cognitive Linguistics 23(4), 643 – 674
  10. Cooperrider, K., & Núñez, R. (2016). How we make sense of time. Scientific American, 27(6), 38-43.
  11. De Sousa, H. (2012). Generational differences in the orientation of time in Cantonese speakers as a function of changes in the direction of Chinese writing. Frontiers in psychology, 3, 255, 1-8.
  12. Evans, V. (2003). The structure of time: Language, meaning and temporal cognition: Amesterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
  13. Fuhrman, O., & Boroditsky, L. (2007). Mental time-lines follow writing direction: Comparing English and Hebrew speakers. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 29, 1007-10011.
  14. Fuhrman, O., & Boroditsky, L. (2010). Cross‐cultural differences in mental representations of time: Evidence from an implicit nonlinguistic task. Cognitive science, 34(8), 1430-1451.
  15. 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(7), 1305-1328.
  16. Galton, A. (2011). Time flies but space does not: Limits to the spatialisation of time. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(3), 695-703.
  17. Gholamalizadeh, M., Mohammadrezaei, A., Fathi, S. (2021). A Comparative Study of Time Metaphor in Mahmoud Dolatabadi and Yusuf Idris’ Novels. Zabanpazuhi. Available Online from 19 July 2021 doi: 10.22051/jlr.2021.35860.2026 [In Persian].
  18. Haspelmath, M. (1997). From space to time temporal adverbials in the world''s languages. Newcastle, UK: Lincom Europa.
  19. Hong, T., He, X., Tillman, R., Zhao, X., & Deng, Y. (2017). The Vertical and Horizontal Spatial-Temporal Conceptual Metaphor Representation of Chinese Temporal Words. Psychology, 8(11), 1679.
  20. Jamalian, A., & Tversky, B. (2012). Gestures alter thinking about time. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 34, 503-508. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3372k7gs.
  21. Kolesari, J., & Carlson, L. (2018). How the physicality of space affects how we think about time. Memory & cognition, 46(3), 438-449.
  22. Kranjec, A. (2006). Extending spatial frames of reference to temporal concepts. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. 28, 4447-452
  23. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive science, 4(2), 195-208.
  24. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: U of Chicago P.
  25. Le Guen, O., Balam, P., & Ildefonsa, L. (2012). No metaphorical timeline in gesture and cognition among Yucatec Mayas. Frontiers in psychology, 3, 271, 1-15.
  26. Levinson, S. C. (2006). The language of space in Yélî Dnye. in Yélî Dnye. In S. C. Levinson, & D. P. Wilkins (Eds.), Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity (pp. 157-203). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  27. Li, H. (2017). Time on hands. Gesture, 16(3), 396-415.
  28. McTaggart, J. E. (1908). The unreality of time. Mind, 457-474.
  29. Miles, L. K., Tan, L., Noble, G. D., Lumsden, J., & Macrae, C. N. (2011). Can a mind have two time lines? Exploring space–time mapping in Mandarin and English speakers. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(3), 598-604.
  30. Moore, K. E. (2004). Ego-based and field-based frames of reference in space to time metaphors. Language, culture, and mind, 151-165.
  31. Moore, K. E. (2006). Space-to-time mappings and temporal concepts. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2), 199-244.
  32. Moore, K. E. (2011). Ego-perspective and field-based frames of reference: Temporal meanings of FRONT in Japanese, Wolof, and Aymara. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(3), 759-776.
  33. Moore, K. E. (2014). Metaphor, metonymy, and frames of reference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  34. 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.
  35. Núñez, R., & Cooperrider, K. (2013). The tangle of space and time in human cognition. Trends in cognitive sciences, 17(5), 220-229.
  36. Rodríguez, L. (2019). “Time is not a line.” Temporal gestures in Chol Mayan. Journal of Pragmatics, 151, 1-17.
  37. Tenbrink, T. (2011). Reference frames of space and time in language. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(3), 704-722.
  38. Walker, E., & Cooperrider, K. (2016). The continuity of metaphor: Evidence from temporal gestures. Cognitive science, 40(2), 481-495.
  39. Weger, U. W., & Pratt, J. (2008). Time flies like an arrow: Space-time compatibility effects suggest the use of a mental timeline. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(2), 426-430.
  40. Yu, N. (2012). The metaphorical orientation of time in Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(10), 1335-1354.
  41. Zinken, J. (2010). Temporal frames of reference. In P. Chilton, V. Evans (Eds.), Language, cognition and space: the state of the art and new directions (pp. 479-498): Equinox Publishing Ltd