Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Does age in addition to occupation affect the c...
View graph of relations

Does age in addition to occupation affect the conceptualization of how time is structured?

Research output: Contribution to conference - Without ISBN/ISSN Conference paper

Unpublished
Publication date2016
Original languageEnglish
EventUK Cognitive Linguistics Conference 2016 - Bangor University, Bangor, United Kingdom
Duration: 19/07/201622/07/2016
http://ukclc2016.bangor.ac.uk/

Conference

ConferenceUK Cognitive Linguistics Conference 2016
Abbreviated titleUK CLC 16
CountryUnited Kingdom
CityBangor
Period19/07/1622/07/16
Internet address

Abstract

The English language exhibits two deictic space–time metaphors: the “moving ego” metaphor, where one conceptualizes the ego as moving forward through time, and the “moving time” metaphor, where a one conceptualizes time as moving forward towards the ego (Clark, 1973, pp.51). This has been measured by experiments which require participants to respond to the question: “The meeting originally scheduled for next Wednesday has been moved forward two days. Which day has it been moved to?”(McGlone & Harding, 1998, p.1217). Research has also suggested that multiple factors, such as personality differences, lifestyle, and emotional experiences, may also influence which mapping a person adopts (Duffy & Feist, 2014; Duffy, Feist & McCarthy, 2014; Margolies & Crawford, 2008; Richmond, Wilson & Zinken, 2012). In this paper, I probe this line of research further, by examining the effect of age and occupation on the mappings adopted. I run one experiment on multiple data sets. Data set one demonstrates a significant difference between those who either work or study full time (χ2 1,63 = 15.017; p < 0.001; Cramer’s V = 0.500); Data set two, those who both work and study in different capacities demonstrates significant differences (χ2 1,28 = 5.142; p = 0.023; Cramer's V= 0.429); and the third is polarized by the amount of university contact hours participants have (χ2 1,63 = 6.676; p = 0.01; Cramer’s V = 0.326).