Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details

Cognitive Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Newman, John

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR increased in 2015: 1.375
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.527
Rank 29 out of 179 in category Linguistics in the 2015 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Social Sciences Edition

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.592
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 1.277
Impact per Publication (IPP) 2015: 0.833

Online
ISSN
1613-3641
See all formats and pricing
Volume 25, Issue 1 (Feb 2014)

Issues

Individual differences in the interpretation of ambiguous statements about time

Sarah E. Duffy
  • Corresponding author
  • Northumbria University, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Department of Humanities, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
  • Email:
/ Michele I. Feist
  • University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Department of English, Lafayette, LA, USA
  • Email:
Published Online: 2014-02-27 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2013-0030

Abstract

What factors influence the ways in which people resolve ambiguity? In English, two contrasting perspectives are implicit in deictic temporal expressions: the Moving Time metaphor conceptualizes time as moving forward towards the ego and the Moving Ego metaphor conceptualizes the ego as moving forward towards the future (Clark 1973). We examine the ambiguity arising from these two conceptualizations, claimed to be equally likely in a “neutral” context (Boroditsky and Ramscar 2002). Whereas previous studies have demonstrated that exposure to a spatial situation related to one interpretation may influence the resolution of the ambiguity (e.g. Boroditsky 2000; Nunez 2007), we focus on the lifestyle and personality factors of the participants as potential additional influences on ambiguity resolution in the interpretation of temporal metaphors. Experiment 1 asks whether lifestyle might influence an individual's approach to time and resulting resolution of temporal ambiguity, comparing preferred responses from two groups of participants with very different demands on the structuring of time: university students and administrators. We observed a difference between the two groups, with administrators more frequently adopting the Moving Time perspective and students, the Moving Ego perspective. Experiment 2 examines personality-related differences, focusing specifically on individual differences in procrastination (Lay 1986) and conscientiousness (John 1990). We observed a significant effect with participants who adopted the Moving Ego perspective reporting higher procrastination scores and lower conscientiousness scores than participants who adopted the Moving Time perspective. Experiment 3 investigates further personality-related differences, focusing specifically on individual differences in extroversion (John 1990). We observed a relationship between extroversion and disambiguation responses, with participants who adopted the Moving Ego perspective evidencing higher levels of extroversion. Taken together, the results from these three studies suggest that individual differences in lifestyle and personality may influence people's perspectives on the movement of events in time and their concomitant interpretation of temporally ambiguous utterances, precluding a universal “neutral” context within which language is interpreted.

Keywords: Moving Time; Moving Ego; metaphor; temporal perspective; ambiguity; individual differences; lifestyle; personality

About the article

Published Online: 2014-02-27

Published in Print: 2014-02-01


Citation Information: Cognitive Linguistics, ISSN (Online) 1613-3641, ISSN (Print) 0936-5907, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2013-0030. Export Citation

Citing Articles

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.

[2]
Annelie Rothe-Wulf, Sieghard Beller, and Andrea Bender
The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2015, Volume 68, Number 5, Page 917
[4]
Sarah E. Duffy, Michele I. Feist, and Steven McCarthy
Cognitive Science, 2014, Volume 38, Number 8, Page 1662

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in