Extending Spatial Frames of Reference to Temporal Concepts

Extending Spatial Frames of Reference to Temporal Concepts Alexander Kranjec (akranjec@brooklyn.cuny.edu) Department of Psychology, Brooklyn College, CUNY, 2900 Bedford Ave. Brooklyn, NY 11210 USA Abstract structure) of the source domain, in a way consistent with the inherent structure of the target domain” (Lakoff 1993, p. 215). In the case of time, the source domain consists of cognitive representations of basic spatial relations that emerge through the subject’s experience navigating through, observing motion in, and orienting oneself within, space. Thus the extension of spatial frame of reference models to temporal concepts might illuminate similarities in the structure of spatial and temporal cognition. Tripartite systems are currently common to several theories concerned with distinguishing different spatial frames of reference (Levinson, 1996, 2003; Levelt, 1996; Tversky, 1996). The notion that such a 3-part spatial model (e.g. intrinsic, deictic, extrinsic) can be extended to temporal models is at least theoretically plausible (Levinson, 2003). The current study reviews three basic spatial frame of reference types. Then, the results of recent empirical work investigating temporal metaphor is reviewed and applied to a theoretical temporal frame of reference model. Lastly, the concept of an extrinsic temporal frame of reference is introduced and supported by several experiments. Spatial Frames of Reference 1 Intrinsic Introduction The intrinsic frame of reference is an “object-centered” coordinate system where directional valences are based on the inherent formal properties or features of the object that is being used to ground a scene. In English, “sidedness” is often a saliency issue generally determined by an object’s function and the manner in which one acts upon it. So, the front of a chair is the side aligned with our own front when in use (Fig. 1a). The front of a television is the side we watch. And the front of a car is the end facing the direction of its motion trajectory. If an object has no inherent front or back that can be determined by physical features, motion alone can provide a front and back. In the case of a cube sliding down a hill for example, the front of the cube is regularly assumed to be the side facing downhill. Space is often divided into three frames of reference (see Levinson, 1996, 2003; Levelt, 1996; Tversky, 1996). The notion of frame of reference in the context of spatial cognition refers to the “distinctions between underlying coordinate systems” (Levinson, 2003 p. 24) people use when thinking and talking about space. In general, frame of reference models can be understood as attempts to disambiguate and refine issues raised by the many disciplines in cognitive science where perspective and figure/ground relations are important. Generally, these models divide frame types by the main reference point used to establish unambiguous relations: (a) of inherent object features or intrinsic relations; (b) according to viewer or ego-centered d e i c t i c frames; or (c) in respect to environmental or extrinsic reference axes. Time is often understood in terms of space. Lakoff and Johnson (1999) have suggested that our entire system of conceptualization is built upon a limited number of source domains that emerge directly from experience. They argue that abstract domains of thought, whether one examines modes diverse as moral reasoning or temporal cognition, are generally understood and elaborated upon in terms of a more concrete source domain, like physical well-being or spatial cognition, respectively. Recent work in conceptual metaphor theory has begun to investigate the structure of mappings between concrete experiential domains, like space, and abstract concepts, like time. According to conceptual metaphor theory, more abstract domains that lack direct perceptual support, like time, are target domains and understood metaphorically in terms of experientially concrete source domains, like space (see also Gentner, 1983; 2001). Metaphorical mappings are assumed to “preserve the cognitive topology (the image-schema Deictic For the purposes of the present discussion the deictic frame of reference can be understood as ego-centered or grounded in a particular “viewpoint.” Deictic coordinate systems tend to be based on the reference planes derived from bodily Although terminology is a topic of some dispute in this area of research, for the present paper I have to chosen to evade excessive hand wringing on the matter. For example, “deictic” is being used although I could have chosen the term “egocentric” to define the sort of “viewer-centered” perspective described in this paper. Yet Levinson’s (2003) term “relative” would have been inappropriate because his relative frame represents in some sense an attempt to reconcile ambiguities arising in 3-D space that are probably irrelevant in 1-D time. I have decided to use the term “extrinsic” because I interpret it to be a sufficiently general abstraction of the similarly conceived “allocentric” or “environment” centered frames that focus on the “ground” to establish reference. Another term that could have been used, “absolute,” I thought carried too much philosophical baggage in the context of time.