Time and Space in Tzeltal: Is the Future Uphill?

Penelope Brown

102 citations0/0 files storedFrontiers in Psychology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Categorization, perception, and language Language and Culture Language, Metaphor, and Cognition

Abstract

Linguistic expressions of time often draw on spatial language, which raises the question of whether cultural specificity in spatial language and cognition is reflected in thinking about time. In the Mayan language Tzeltal, spatial language relies heavily on an absolute frame of reference utilizing the overall slope of the land, distinguishing an "uphill/downhill" axis oriented from south to north, and an orthogonal "crossways" axis (sunrise-set) on the basis of which objects at all scales are located. Does this absolute system for calculating spatial relations carry over into construals of temporal relations? This question was explored in a study where Tzeltal consultants produced temporal expressions and performed two different non-linguistic temporal ordering tasks. The results show that at least five distinct schemata for conceptualizing time underlie Tzeltal linguistic expressions: (i) deictic ego-centered time, (ii) time as an ordered sequence (e.g., "first"/"later"), (iii) cyclic time (times of the day, seasons), (iv) time as spatial extension or location (e.g., "entering/exiting July"), and (v) a time vector extending uphillwards into the future. The non-linguistic task results showed that the "time moves uphillwards" metaphor, based on the absolute frame of reference prevalent in Tzeltal spatial language and thinking and important as well in the linguistic expressions for time, is not strongly reflected in responses on these tasks. It is argued that systematic and consistent use of spatial language in an absolute frame of reference does not necessarily transfer to consistent absolute time conceptualization in non-linguistic tasks; time appears to be more open to alternative construals.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 102 citations exist upstream.

References

1956Language, Thought, and Reality.2000Toward a Cognitive Semantics 2000Toward a Cognitive Semantics 2000Metaphoric structuring: understanding time through spatial metaphors 2001Does Language Shape Thought?: Mandarin and English Speakers' Conceptions of Time 2007Time in the mind: Using space to think about time 2006With the Future Behind Them: Convergent Evidence From Aymara Language and Gesture in the Crosslinguistic Comparison of Spatial Construals of Time 1973SPACE, TIME, SEMANTICS, AND THE CHILD11The preparation of this paper was supported in part by Public Health Service Grant MH-20021 from the National Institute of Mental Health. I wish to thank Eve V. Clark for her suggestions and comments in the writing of this paper.

Cited by

2013Language and Time: A Cognitive Linguistics Approach 2012Moving Forward in Space and Time: How Strong is the Conceptual Link between Spatial and Temporal Frames of Reference?

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.