Editor-in-Chief: Newman, John
4 Issues per year
IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 2.135
CiteScore 2016: 1.29
SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 1.247
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 1.485
Based on linguistic and behavioural evidence, representations for time appear to be structured in terms of space (e.g., Casasanto and Boroditsky 2008; Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 1999). This finding has led to a recent move to apply the theoretical construct of frames of reference (FoRs) from the domain of space to time, leading to sophisticated taxonomies for temporal frames of reference (e.g., Bender et al. 2010; Tenbrink 2011; Zinken 2010). The present paper argues that while space is important for modelling temporal reference, this is not the whole story. I argue that the experience types that in part underlie temporal representations are inherently temporal, rather than spatial in nature. They consist of a range of experience types, the hallmark of FoRs in the domain of time being transience (Galton 2011), a construct worked out in some detail. The present paper proposes three distinct types of temporal frames of reference (t-FoRs), anchored to three distinct types of transience. These proposals are argued to complement and enhance existing proposals for t-FoRs, rather than replacing them.
Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.