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 paperpeer-review

Unpublished

Standard

Does age in addition to occupation affect the conceptualization of how time is structured? / Heritage, Frazer .
2016. Paper presented at UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference 2016, Bangor, United Kingdom.

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

Harvard

Heritage, F 2016, 'Does age in addition to occupation affect the conceptualization of how time is structured?', Paper presented at UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference 2016, Bangor, United Kingdom, 19/07/16 - 22/07/16.

APA

Heritage, F. (2016). Does age in addition to occupation affect the conceptualization of how time is structured?. Paper presented at UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference 2016, Bangor, United Kingdom.

Vancouver

Heritage F. Does age in addition to occupation affect the conceptualization of how time is structured?. 2016. Paper presented at UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference 2016, Bangor, United Kingdom.

Author

Heritage, Frazer . / Does age in addition to occupation affect the conceptualization of how time is structured?. Paper presented at UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference 2016, Bangor, United Kingdom.

Bibtex

@conference{e2b38eb98e2b41138c1fa1b683728524,
title = "Does age in addition to occupation affect the conceptualization of how time is structured?",
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{\textquoteright}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{\textquoteright}s V = 0.326). ",
keywords = "metaphor; space-time; CMT",
author = "Frazer Heritage",
year = "2016",
language = "English",
note = "UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference 2016, UK CLC 16 ; Conference date: 19-07-2016 Through 22-07-2016",
url = "http://ukclc2016.bangor.ac.uk/",

}

RIS

TY - CONF

T1 - Does age in addition to occupation affect the conceptualization of how time is structured?

AU - Heritage, Frazer

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - 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).

AB - 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).

KW - metaphor; space-time; CMT

M3 - Conference paper

T2 - UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference 2016

Y2 - 19 July 2016 through 22 July 2016

ER -