An Interdisciplinary Approach to Understanding the Psychological Impact of Different Grammaticalizations of the Future

Tiziana Jäggi; Sayaka Sato; Christelle Gillioz; Pascal Mark Gygax

doi:10.5334/joc.100

Abstract

Considering how fundamental and ubiquitous temporal information is in discourse (e.g., Zwaan & Radvansky, 1998), it seems rather surprising that the impact of the grammaticalization of the future on the way we perceive the future has only been scarcely studied. We argue that this may be due to its rather abstract nature and how it has been previously operationalized. In this review, we lay the foundation for studying the impact of the grammaticalization of the future on mental representations of the future by taking an interdisciplinary perspective, connecting cognitive sciences, linguistics, psycholinguistics, economics, and health psychology. More specifically, we argue that experimental psycholinguistics, combined with more applied domains, constitute a promising research avenue.

References

1Anderson, A., Garrod, S. C., & Sanford, A. J. (1983). The accessibility of pronominal antecedents as a function of episode shifts in narrative text. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35, 427–440. DOI: 10.1080/14640748308402480
Back to article
2Athanasopoulos, P., & Bylund, E. (2013a). The ‘thinking’ in thinking-for-speaking: Where is it? Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 4, 91–100. DOI: 10.1075/lia.4.1.05ath
Back to article
3Athanasopoulos, P., & Bylund, E. (2013b). Does grammatical aspect affect motion event cognition? A cross-linguistic comparison of English and Swedish speakers. Cognitive Science, 37, 286–309. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12006
Back to article
4Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X99002149
Back to article
5Becker, R. B., Ferretti, T. R., & Madden-Lombardi, C. J. (2013). Grammatical aspect, lexical aspect, and event duration constrain the availability of events in narratives. Cognition, 129, 212–220. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.06.014
Back to article
6Bickel, W. K., Koffarnus, M. N., Moody, L., & Wilson, A. G. (2014). The behavioral- and neuro-economic process of temporal discounting: A candidate behavioral marker of addiction. Neuropharmacology, 76, 518–527. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2013.06.013
Back to article
7Bickel, W. K., Miller, M. L., Yi, R., Kowal, B. P., Lindquist, D. M., & Pitcock, J. A. (2007). Behavioral and neuroeconomics of drug addiction: Competing neural systems and temporal discounting processes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 90, 85–91. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.09.016
Back to article
8Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75, 1–28. DOI: 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6
Back to article
9Bowerman, M., & Choi, S. (2001). Shaping meanings for language: Universal and language-specific in the acquisition of spatial semantic categories. In M. Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 475–511). Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511620669.018
Back to article
10Bybee, J. L., Pagliuca, W., & Perkins, R. D. (1991). Back to the future. In E. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization: Volume II. Types of grammatical markers (pp.17–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: 10.1075/tsl.19.2.04byb
Back to article
11Bylund, E., Gygax, P., Samuel, S., & Athanasopoulos, P. (2019). Back to the future? The role of temporal focus for mapping time onto space. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73, 174–182. DOI: 10.1177/1747021819867624
Back to article
12Carreiras, M., Carriedo, N., Alonso, M. A., & Fernández, A. (1997). The role of verb tense and verb aspect in the foregrounding of information during reading. Memory & Cognition, 25, 438–446. DOI: 10.3758/BF03201120
Back to article
13Casasanto, D., & Boroditsky, L. (2008). Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106, 579–593. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.03.004
Back to article
14Chapman, G. B., & Elstein, A. S. (1995). Valuing the future: Temporal discounting of health and money. Medical Decision Making, 15, 373–386. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9501500408
Back to article
15Chen, J. I., He, T.-S., & Riyanto, Y. E. (2019). The effect of language on economic behavior: Examining the causal link between future tense and time preference in the lab. European Economic Review, 120, 103307. DOI: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2019.103307
Back to article
16Chen, M. K. (2013). The effect of language on economic behavior: Evidence from savings rates, health behaviors, and retirement assets. American Economic Review, 103, 690–731. DOI: 10.1257/aer.103.2.690
Back to article
17Chen, S., Cronqvist, H., Ni, S., & Zhang, F. (2017). Languages and corporate savings behavior. Journal of Corporate Finance, 46, 320–341. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2017.07.009
Back to article
18Cohn-Sheehy, B. I., & Ranganath, C. (2017). Time regained: How the human brain constructs memory for time. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 17, 169–177. DOI: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.08.005
Back to article
19Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect (reprinted). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Back to article
20Comrie, B. (1985). Tense (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139165815
Back to article
21Dahl, Ö. (2000). The grammar of future time reference in European languages. In Ö. Dahl (Ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe (pp. 309–328). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Back to article
22Dahl, Ö., & Velupillai, V. (2013). The future tense. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Retrieved from http://wals.info/chapter/67
Back to article
23D’Argembeau, A., Renaud, O., & Van der Linden, M. (2011). Frequency, characteristics and functions of future-oriented thoughts in daily life. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 96–103. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1647
Back to article
24Dudschig, C., Lachmair, M., de la Vega, I., De Filippis, M., & Kaup, B. (2012). From top to bottom: Spatial shifts of attention caused by linguistic stimuli. Cognitive Processing, 13, 151–154. DOI: 10.1007/s10339-012-0480-x
Back to article
25Evans, V. (2003). The structure of time: Language, meaning, and temporal cognition. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Back to article
26Fecica, A. M., & O’Neill, D. K. (2010). A step at a time: Preliterate children’s simulation of narrative movement during story comprehension. Cognition, 116, 368–381. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.05.014
Back to article
27Ferretti, T. R., Rohde, H., Kehler, A., & Crutchley, M. (2009). Verb aspect, event structure, and coreferential processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 191–205. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.04.001
Back to article
28Flecken, M., von Stutterheim, C., & Carroll, M. (2014). Grammatical aspect influences motion event perception: Findings from a cross-linguistic non-verbal recognition task. Language and Cognition, 6, 45–78. DOI: 10.1017/langcog.2013.2
Back to article
29Fuhrman, O., McCormick, K., Chen, E., Jiang, H., Shu, D., Mao, S., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). How linguistic and cultural forces shape conceptions of time: English and Mandarin time in 3D. Cognitive Science, 35, 1305–1328. DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01193.x
Back to article
30Galor, O., Özak, Ö., & Sarid, A. (2016). Geographical origins and economic consequences of language structures. CESifo Working Paper Series No. 6149. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2820889
Back to article
31Galor, O., Özak, Ö., & Sarid, A. (2018). Geographical roots of the coevolution of cultural and linguistic traits. NBER Working Paper Series No. w25289. DOI: 10.31235/osf.io/me2g7
Back to article
32Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2007). Prospection: Experiencing the future. Science, 317, 1351–1354. DOI: 10.1126/science.1144161
Back to article
33Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558–565. DOI: 10.3758/BF03196313
Back to article
34Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2, 271–299. DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271
Back to article
35Havas, D. A., Glenberg, A. M., & Rinck, M. (2007). Emotion simulation during language comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 436–441. DOI: 10.3758/BF03194085
Back to article
36Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Back to article
37Howard, M. W., & Kahana, M. J. (2002). A distributed representation of temporal context. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 46, 269–299. DOI: 10.1006/jmps.2001.1388
Back to article
38Ireland, M. E., Schwartz, H. A., Chen, Q., Ungar, L. H., & Albarracín, D. (2015). Future-oriented tweets predict lower county-level HIV prevalence in the United States. Health Psychology, 34, 1252–1260. DOI: 10.1037/hea0000279
Back to article
39Jarmolowicz, D. P., Lemley, S. M., Cruse, D., & Sofis, M. J. (2015). A cup today or a pot later: On the discounting of delayed caffeinated beverages. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, 13, 101–112. DOI: 10.1515/jafio-2015-0021
Back to article
40Jenkins, L. J., & Ranganath, C. (2010). Prefrontal and medial temporal lobe activity at encoding predicts temporal context memory. Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 15558–15565. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1337-10.2010
Back to article
41Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Back to article
42Kim, S., & Filimonau, V. (2017). On linguistic relativity and pro-environmental attitudes in tourism. Tourism Management, 63, 158–169. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2017.06.012
Back to article
43Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394. DOI: 10.1037//0033-295X.85.5.363
Back to article
44Konishi, T. (1993). The semantics of grammatical gender: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 519–534. DOI: 10.1007/BF01068252
Back to article
45Kooij, D. T. A. M., Kanfer, R., Betts, M., & Rudolph, C. W. (2018). Future time perspective: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103, 867–893. DOI: 10.1037/apl0000306
Back to article
46Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Back to article
47Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers (Edited by Dorwin Cartwright). Oxford, England: Harpers.
Back to article
48Liang, H., Marquis, C., Renneboog, L., & Sun, S. L. (2018). Future-time framing: The effect of language on corporate future orientation. Organization Science, 29, 1–19. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2018.1217
Back to article
49Lucy, J. A. (1992). Grammatical categories and cognition: A case study of the linguistic relativity hypothesis (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511620713
Back to article
50MacLeod, A. (2017). Prospection, well-being, and mental health (First edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/med:psych/9780198725046.001.0001
Back to article
51MacLeod, A. K., & O’Conner, R. C. (2018). Positive future-thinking, well-being, and mental health. In G. Oettingen, A. T. Sevincer & P. M. Gollwitzer (Eds.), The psychology of thinking about the future (pp. 199–213). New York and London: The Guilford Press.
Back to article
52Madden, C. J., & Zwaan, R. A. (2003). How does verb aspect constrain event representations? Memory & Cognition, 31, 663–672. DOI: 10.3758/BF03196106
Back to article
53Magliano, J. P., & Schleich, M. C. (2000). Verb aspect and situation models. Discourse Processes, 29, 83–112. DOI: 10.1207/S15326950dp2902_1
Back to article
54Mavisakalyan, A., Tarverdi, Y., & Weber, C. (2018). Talking in the present, caring for the future: Language and environment. Journal of Comparative Economics, 46, 1370–1387. DOI: 10.1016/j.jce.2018.01.003
Back to article
55Monaco, E., Jost, L. B., Gygax, P. M., & Annoni, J.-M. (2019). Embodied semantics in a second language: critical review and clinical implications. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13, 110. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2019.00110
Back to article
56Núñez, R., & Cooperrider, K. (2013). The tangle of space and time in human cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 220–229. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.03.008
Back to article
57Pennebaker, J. W., Boyd, R. L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.
Back to article
58Pérez, E. O., & Tavits, M. (2017). Language shapes people’s time perspective and support for future-oriented policies: Language and political attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 61, 715–727. DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12290
Back to article
59Polyn, S. M., & Kahana, M. J. (2008). Memory search and the neural representation of context. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 24–30. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.10.010
Back to article
60Radford, A. (1997). Syntactic theory and the structure of English: A minimalist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139166706
Back to article
61Roberts, S. G., Winters, J., & Chen, K. (2015). Future tense and economic decisions: Controlling for cultural evolution. PLOS ONE, 10, e0132145. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132145
Back to article
62Sato, S., Gygax, P. M., & Gabriel, U. (2013). Gender inferences: Grammatical features and their impact on the representation of gender in bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 792–807. DOI: 10.1017/S1366728912000739
Back to article
63Sera, M. D., Berge, C. A. H., & del Castillo Pintado, J. (1994). Grammatical and conceptual forces in the attribution of gender by English and Spanish speakers. Cognitive Development, 9, 261–292. DOI: 10.1016/0885-2014(94)90007-8
Back to article
64Slobin, D. I. (2003). Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 157–191). Cambridge, MA, US: MIT Press.
Back to article
65Speed, L. J., & Vigliocco, G. (2014). Eye movements reveal the dynamic simulation of speed in language. Cognitive Science, 38, 367–382. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12096
Back to article
66Stanfield, R. A., & Zwaan, R. A. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological Science, 12, 153–156. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.00326
Back to article
67Story, G. W., Vlaev, I., Seymour, B., Darzi, A., & Dolan, R. J. (2014). Does temporal discounting explain unhealthy behavior? A systematic review and reinforcement learning perspective. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 8, 1–20. DOI: 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00076
Back to article
68Su, X., Tang, Y., & Xu, B. (2016). Reward-timing uncertainty, languages, and R&D investment. SSRN Electronic Journal. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2761432
Back to article
69Sutter, M., Angerer, S., Glätzle-Rützler, D., & Lergetporer, P. (2018). Language group differences in time preferences: Evidence from primary school children in a bilingual city. European Economic Review, 106, 21–34. DOI: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2018.04.003
Back to article
70Szpunar, K. K., Spreng, R. N., & Schacter, D. L. (2016). Toward a taxonomy of future thinking. In K. Michaelian, S. B. Klein & K. K. Szpunar (Eds.), Seeing the future: Theoretical perspectives on future-oriented mental time travel. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190241537.003.0002
Back to article
71Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24–54. DOI: 10.1177/0261927X09351676
Back to article
72Teuscher, U., & Mitchell, S. H. (2011). Relation between time perspective and delay discounting: A literature review. The Psychological Record, 61, 613–632. DOI: 10.1007/BF03395780
Back to article
73Thoma, D., & Tytus, A. E. (2018). How cross-linguistic differences in the grammaticalization of future time reference influence intertemporal choices. Cognitive Science, 42, 974–1000. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12525
Back to article
74Thorstad, R., & Wolff, P. (2018). A big data analysis of the relationship between future thinking and decision-making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, E1740–E1748. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1706589115
Back to article
75Zwaan, R. A. (1996). Processing narrative time shifts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1196–1207. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.22.5.1196
Back to article
76Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory: Vol. 44 (pp. 35–62). New York, NY: Academic Press. DOI: 10.1016/S0079-7421(03)44002-4
Back to article
77Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162
Back to article
78Zwaan, R. A., & Rapp, D. N. (2006). Discourse comprehension. In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 725–764). San Diego, CA: Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/B978-012369374-7/50019-5
Back to article
79Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2002). Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychological Science, 13, 168–171. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.00430
Back to article
80Zwaan, R. A., & Taylor, L. J. (2006). Seeing, acting, understanding: Motor resonance in language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 1–11. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.1
Back to article

An Interdisciplinary Approach to Understanding the Psychological Impact of Different Grammaticalizations of the Future

Abstract

Paradigm

My account