Does the Spatial-Temporal Metaphor in Mandarin and English

Influence Time Perception?

Sinan Yang

Beijing National Day School, 100039, Beijing, China

Keywords: Linguistic Relativity, Spatial-Temporal Metaphor.

Abstract: This paper is a literature review of studies on the relationship between spatial-temporal metaphor and time

perception in Mandarin and English. English has only horizontal metaphors, while Mandarin has both

horizontal and vertical metaphors. If the presence of vertical metaphors affects the way Mandarin and English

speakers perceive time, support is given to linguistic relativity. The paper divides studies based on whether a

linguistic paradigm is used. Two studies by Boroditsky are mainly discussed. It is concluded that vertical

temporal metaphors prime Mandarin speakers with a tendency to perceive time vertically. Although many

aspects are open and yet not answered, the evidence supports a weak statement of linguistic relativity.

1 INTRODUCTION

In the field of psycholinguistics, the relationship

between our natural language and mental perception

has long been debated. It is uncertain whether and to

what extent language affects how humans think or

perceive certain concepts. Whorf (1940) proposed the

theory of linguistic determinism (i.e., Sapir-Whorf

hypothesis), that what language people speak

constrains their cognitive abilities to think of and

comprehend some things. According to the following

quote, “…users of markedly different grammars are

pointed by their grammars toward different types of

observations and different evaluations of externally

similar acts of observation…” (Whorf, 1956).

However, this opinion has been critiqued and proved

to be too extreme to explain the language-perception

relationship. Still, the relativistic perspective that

cognition is not universal across languages urges a

series of empirical studies in several crosslinguistic

aspects. On the other hand, contrary voices include

Pinker (1994) and Chomsky (2006), who both raise a

theory that stands for a universal characteristic

beyond the natural language. For example, Pinker

believes that “the language of thinking,” an inherent

system with information processors as an underlying

feature among all natural languages, determines how

people process information instead of a single natural

language (Hallaste, 2013).

Correspondingly, the theory of the strong

Whorfian linguistic determinism has developed into a

weaker version, namely linguistic relativity, which is

widely accepted and justified in certain cultural or

conceptual areas (Gumperz & Levinson, 1996). The

evidence is so acceptable that even Pinker (2007)

does concede that post-Whorfian experiments do

imply language’s effects. Major debates are narrowed

down to specific research topics rather than

theoretical proposals. The focus of linguistic

relativity studies shifts from lexical and grammatical

framings to context-based theoretical interpretations

(Gumperz & Levinson, 1996). Widely studied and

controversial aspects include the color schema of

Russian (Winawer et al., 2007), the spatial reasoning

of Tenejapan Mayans (Li and Gleitman, 2002;

Levinson, 2002), and the number system of the Pirahã

language (Frank et al., 2008). To this day, relativism

and universalism are both plausible in explaining

research results and building theories. As Li and

Gleitman (2002) mentioned, both interpretations

should be thoroughly weighed, for language

eventually does play an obscure role while

nonlinguistic factors can hardly be completely

controlled, and thus, an inclusive understanding is

more important than the stance.

In this paper, linguistic relativity is examined

based on spatial-temporal metaphors. The

relationship between language and mind can be

narrowed down and specified on the effect of

different temporal metaphors on time perception. To

provide a narrower view of this question, this paper

aims to make a general conclusion on temporal

metaphors in the sense of a crosslinguistic

Yang, S.

Does the Spatial-Temporal Metaphor in Mandarin and English Inﬂuence Time Perception?.

DOI: 10.5220/0013968500004912

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Innovative Education and Social Development (IESD 2025), pages 113-119

ISBN: 978-989-758-779-5

113

comparison, specifically between Mandarin and

English. Previous studies widely range from language

to language with various research methods to

examine relativistic statements without a precise

evaluation on a detailed question. An analysis of two

languages is already complex and adequately

provides a glimpse of the panorama. Therefore, the

paper aims to focus on the one specific aspect and

reach a solid, comprehensive conclusion, with which

segments of evidence assemble and further develop.

Mandarin and English use various prepositions or

conjunctions to denote time. English mostly uses

horizontal spatial metaphors such as “future is ahead

of us” and “yesterday is behind us.” Other metaphors

involve etymological inferences, such as “before,” in

which “fore” means front, while purely temporal

expressions including “early” and “next” also exist.

Comparatively, Mandarin uses a different system of

metaphors for time, both horizontal and vertical. For

example, vertical prepositions like shàng and xià (up

and down) are used to indicate temporal relations, as

in the following sentences.

shàng shān

climb up the mountain

xià lóu tī

go downstairs

shàng zhōu

last week

xià ge yuè

next month

One hypothesis related to this crosslinguistic

difference is whether frequent uses of vertical

metaphors lead Mandarin speakers to prefer or tend

to perceive time vertically. Contrarily, some may

argue that the presence of vertical metaphors in

Mandarin does not necessarily influence the basic

mindset of horizontal metaphors that are prevalent in

both languages. In this paper, the hypothesis is

empirically evaluated from both suppositions on their

methodology and interpretations and to what extent

they saliently align with each other.

This paper divides experiments based on their

methodological paradigms. The method of literature

review is used to study how methodology develops

with theories. Furthermore, the main researcher on

this topic is Lera Boroditsky, who contributes to

linguistic relativity from multiple aspects. Therefore,

the discussion primarily focuses on her experiments

along with papers responding to her and how her

experimental paradigms are revised through time.

2 LINGUISTIC PARADIGM

2.1 Boroditsky (2001)

Boroditsky starts with Lakoff’s theory on metaphoric

representation, specifically in the perspectives of

spatial-temporal representations, and provides her

theory, the Metaphorical Structuring View. She

proposes that domains of space and time share an

identical structure, and spatial information from

experiential domains provides schemas for temporal

meanings from abstract domains (Boroditsky, 2000).

Based on her thorough research on spatial-temporal

metaphors, she develops further into how they relate

to another variable, cognition. Connected with

linguistic relativity, Boroditsky studies how linguistic

metaphors influence the way people perceive time

(Boroditsky, 2001). The debate and deep

investigations over Mandarin and English spatial

temporal metaphors start then.

In Boroditsky (2001), a lexical difference between

Mandarin and English was noticed. She believes that

both Mandarin and English speakers use horizontal

metaphors, while Mandarin speakers exceptionally

use vertical metaphors. Three experiments are

conducted related to this hypothesis, the first of which

specifically tests whether spatial metaphors have

chronical and intermediate connotations for how they

perceive time.

Native English and Mandarin participants are

recruited by convenient sampling. The experiment is

conducted in English. In each unit of the test,

participants are primed with an image indicating

horizontal or vertical relations and then answer a

true/false target question, deciding whether the

temporal sequence is correct. The two-dimensional

image presents the horizontal prime as left-right and

the vertical prime as up-down. However, the direction

of left-right and up-down reference systems is not

specified. Directions in priming and target questions

are matched in an unknown way. Target questions are

sentences that describe the sequence of two temporal

concepts, such as March and April. Half of the trials

use horizontal metaphors before and after, and the

other half uses spatial neutral terms earlier and later.

False sentences are fillers, and only true sentences are

included in the data collected from the participant’s

response time. This paradigm is linguistic in both the

target question and the prime.

For the result, English and Mandarin speakers

both answer spatial-temporal questions faster after

horizontal primes. This aligns with Boroditsky’s

theory that a spatial reference system has an

immediate effect on temporal processing. Horizontal

IESD 2025 - International Conference on Innovative Education and Social Development

114

priming leads participants to more readily deal with

temporal relations projected onto the horizontal axis.

Furthermore, English and Mandarin speakers perform

differently regarding the pure temporal questions.

Mandarin speakers are faster after vertical primes,

and English speakers are faster after horizontal

primes (within-group comparison). Boroditsky

concludes that these patterns are predicted by the

preponderance of horizontal and vertical spatial

metaphors in each language, which lays a chronical

effect on temporal perceptions.

In Experiment 3, native English speakers are

trained to use vertical terms to denote time while

maintaining the same direction. After training, their

performance resembles Mandarin speakers in

Experiment 1. Boroditsky advocates that the effect of

vertical metaphors is present even without cultural

differences.

2.2 Oppositions

Some replications of Boroditsky (2001), however,

failed to obtain the original results, and other pieces

of evidence regarding Mandarin and English spatial

temporal metaphors weakened the results from

Boroditsky (2001).

Chen (2007) failed to replicate the experiment. He

believed that Boroditsky made an unjustified

assumption that vertical metaphors are more

prevalent in Chinese. He defied it by measuring the

frequency of horizontal and vertical metaphors on

Taiwan’s Internet. He also directly replicated the

experiment and improved the methodology by adding

pause time and adjusting the visual perspective of

horizontal and vertical images. All his results were

insignificant. He added that Boroditsky (2001)

incompetently addressed a false assumption

regarding Mandarin, that vertical metaphors are not

prevalently used.

Another replication by January and Kako (2007)

also did not reach the same results. Six trials on

Mandarin were conducted and refined during the

progress to be as close to the original experiment as

possible, with Boroditsky herself providing

instructions. Again, the replication found that prime

orientation did not have a major effect on reaction

time. Rather, the target type did have a significant

effect in that it elongated the reaction time, which

could not be explained by a relativistic view. If spatial

references indeed implicate the orientation of time,

response time should be longer when target questions

are purely temporal and shorter when horizontal

primes contradict vertical targets. January and Kako

also addressed an interpretation issue in Boroditsky

(2001). In the original Experiment 3, trained English

speakers were as capable as Mandarin speakers of

mapping time to the vertical axis. Given that English

speakers could obtain this alteration of the mental

representation of time with exposure to a new

metaphor for only hours, it is doubtful that Mandarin

speakers who have learned English for years are not

affected by a new metaphor, and essentially,

horizontal metaphors are not unacquainted to them.

Some other studies provided factors other than

linguistic metaphors that could play a role in shaping

temporal representations. Bergen and Chan (2005)

put forward a pattern that Taiwanese read and write

mostly from top to bottom, right to left, while

Mainland Chinese read and write mostly from left to

right, top to bottom. Different writing systems cause

speakers to possess different memorial sequences and

visual attention. Bergen and Chan (2012) extended

beyond that and discovered that the writing system

affects how people perceive time. Participants were

from Mainland China, Taiwan, and America. They

were asked to arrange cards in a temporal order.

American English speakers arranged cards only from

left to right. Mandarin speakers from Mainland China

mostly display from left to right, with some depicting

from top to bottom, while Mandarin speakers from

Taiwan are as likely to arrange cards from left to right

as from top to bottom, with a significant minority

arranging from right to left. This provides

compensation for the ignorance of directions in

Boroditsky (2001). Mandarin speakers with different

writing systems have different tendencies to perceive

time. It is unknown with which writing direction

Mandarin speakers in the original study were

familiar. Also, the study implied the impact of

direction in spatial metaphors. Apart from the

priming effect of different metaphoric axes, a

mismatch between their normal metaphoric direction

and the primed direction would obstruct participants’

responses as well. These undetermined factors in

Boroditsky (2001) made it unreliable and invalid in

the presence of many uncontrolled confounding

variables.

With all those oppositions, Boroditsky (2001),

with a linguistic paradigm, could not successfully

support the Whorfian claim but raised a non-

negligible effect that triggered experimenters for

further evaluation.

Does the Spatial-Temporal Metaphor in Mandarin and English Inﬂuence Time Perception?

115

3 NONLINGUISTIC PARADIGM

3.1 Boroditsky, Fuhrman, &

McCormick (2011)

To ameliorate the original study, Boroditsky

developed a new nonlinguistic paradigm with an

effort to mitigate temporary linguistic effects and

considered all possible confounding variables.

Fuhrman and Boroditsky (2010) examined the

effect of the writing system and time perception

between Hebrew (right to left) and English (left to

right). They discovered that writing direction

influences temporal representations. A nonlinguistic

paradigm was applied in the experiment. Participants

were presented with an image indicating an object,

and then after several seconds, with another image

displaying the same object either earlier or later.

Participants should respond by pressing the key on

the keyboard. The correspondence between the keys

and temporal representation creates a directional

mapping. An inconsistency could largely interfere

with the participant’s interpretation of temporal

sequence. This methodology is crucial because it

avoids the temporary effect of language during the

trial, and the only factor that leads to a distinction is

the underlying mental representation of time.

Boroditsky et al. (2011) developed this paradigm

to improve on her original study. Firstly, the method

in Fuhrman and Boroditsky (2010) was applied to

control the influence of writing directions and

linguistic instructions. Directions were separated in

the task; priming and responses are nonlinguistic.

Secondly, another present issue with the linguistic

paradigm is the conflated horizontal frame. Temporal

metaphors include front-back and left-right axes. The

priming on a planar screen was left-right, while

English and Mandarin metaphors are front-back with

respect to the person. Boroditsky et al. (2011)

addressed this issue with a consistent left-right axis in

prime and responses. Thirdly, to mitigate the effect of

the reading system in Bergen and Chan (2005) and

increase saliency, Boroditsky et al. (2011) selected

Mandarin speakers who were highly proficient and

who experienced merely reading texts from left to

right.

Similar to Fuhrman and Boroditsky (2010),

participants were presented with two images and were

required to press buttons to indicate whether the

second image happened earlier or later. The

arrangement of the buttons varied across groups. The

button indicating earlier was covered in black, and the

one indicating later in white. Buttons were either

arranged horizontally (left to right) or vertically (up

to down) by lying or mounting the keyboard on or

perpendicular to the table. Four factors were

analyzed, including language (Mandarin and

English), spatial metaphor (horizontal or vertical),

canonicality (whether the left-right button is

congruent with temporal earlier-later direction), and

time order (whether canonicality or non-canonicality

comes first).

The comparison was made between groups on to

what extent canonicality affects response time. The

result showed that English speakers in horizontal

settings and Mandarin speakers in both settings were

significantly influenced by the incongruency between

button arrangement and the normal direction of

representation. Since English speakers are not

accustomed to applying vertical metaphors, they were

not affected by canonicality as both directions were

unfamiliar to them. Although it is arguable whether

the usage of such representation does necessarily lead

to being susceptible to inconsistent directions (if time

is perceived on a symmetric axis and both directions

are equivalent), from the common premise of

prevalent unidirectional spatial temporal metaphors

in Mandarin and English, the block of normal

pathway of representation does imply its existence.

Boroditsky et al. (2011) concluded that while

displaying horizontal representations, Mandarin

speakers also show vertical representations, which

aligns with the linguistic patterns shown in spatial

metaphors.

3.2 Further Experiments

Boroditsky et al. (2011) successfully addressed the

relationship between spatial metaphors and the

mental representation of time without major validity

issues. Some other experiments extended further

upon the study, applied this effect, or scrutinized

more specific factors.

Lai and Boroditsky (2013) differentiated between

the immediate and chronic effects of vertical

metaphors and tested them respectively. Here only

the experiment 2 that tested the immediate effect of

language regarding metaphors is discussed. The task

was under a linguistic paradigm, where researchers

asked participants with a priming metaphor in the

question, and participants should point out where the

concept indicated in the three-dimensional frame. A

trend of following the metaphor primed in the

question appeared. Still, participants were likely to

guess the intention and be misled by the question to

simply correspond pointing directions with literal

meanings rather than metaphors. Though

conversations bring in potential response biases, the

IESD 2025 - International Conference on Innovative Education and Social Development

116

experiment formed an antithesis of the immediate

priming effect of the 2011 study regarding the long-

term implications of time.

On the other hand, Chen and O'Seaghdha (2013)

brought about several other questions regarding the

2011 study. Chen replicated it again but by recruiting

participants respectively in Mainland China, Taiwan,

and the USA. He reconducted the experiment with the

same procedure and apparatus. The same results

happened to USA participants as in the 2011 study.

However, Mainland China participants displayed the

same pattern as the USA, while Taiwan participants

were affected by vertical canonicality. The effect of

the writing system (horizontal only in Mainland

China, horizontal and vertical in Taiwan) was offered

as an alternative interpretation to explain results from

Boroditsky (2011). He concluded that the effect of

writing direction and semantics blend, and it is

uncertain whether it supports linguistic relativity.

A recent study by Yang et al. (2022) adopted a

similar nonlinguistic paradigm as Boroditsky et al.

(2011). Instead of a left-right axis, the study tested a

front-back axis (sagittal) that aligns with the literal

connotation of Mandarin words. Participants were

asked to indicate the same sequential pattern with

mice in each hand, which were arranged vertically or

sagittally. The sequence of hands was

counterbalanced and was considered a factor in the

analysis. The same pattern as Boroditsky et al. (2011)

was discovered. The study further examined

Mandarin-English bilinguals with high or low

English proficiency. In both cases, participants

appeared to behave similarly to Mandarin

monolinguals. It reinforced the effect of L1 in

temporal perception.

4 LANGUAGE SHAPES A

TENDENCY

Based on empirical evidence from linguistic and

nonlinguistic paradigms, we may arrive at different

interpretations. Overall, these studies scrutinize the

effect of spatial-temporal metaphors on mental

representations of time between English and

Mandarin, and it is deducible that metaphors do

influence temporal perceptions to some extent.

Under the linguistic paradigm, the usage of

temporal representations is hypothesized to be

constrained within the frame provided by metaphors

(Boroditsky, 2001). This view suggests a stronger

Whorfian belief. The application of metaphoric tools

directly leads to a corresponding spatial and

directional mindset, i.e., linguistic determinants

explicitly frame the aspects of perception. The study

provided weak support due to its flaws in

methodological designs and logical reasoning. Its

evidence was not supportive of its hypothesis.

Counterarguments proposed confounding factors like

the correspondence of direction and writing system

that lay flaws in the previous design.

Under a nonlinguistic paradigm, however, the

statement is largely impaired. The 2001 study

compared response time within the language group

between horizontal and vertical priming, and the 2011

study compared the difference in response time

between the language groups. This indicates that

vertical metaphors don’t play an evident role within a

language and seldom directly differentiate the two

ways of perception. Rather, they just provide a

tendency toward a way of thinking and generate a

difference in the pragmatic inclination between

languages. This implies that the cognitive abilities of

time are intrinsic and metaphoric systems are

independent, i.e., linguistic factors only affect

pragmatically in the long term. Still, the methodology

is highly valid in that it seems inexplicable in the

absence of metaphors as a strong role affecting the

perception. Whereas in the short term, an immediate

effect of language can be determined when

participants react to linguistic stimuli (Lai &

Boroditsky, 2013). These stimuli, nonetheless, appear

to be more likely from the framing effect and the

priming of words. Mental representations are not

simply demonstrated in reactions. Such responses

primarily answer how they are related to stimuli but

lack the involvement of a conscious decision.

Although it does contribute to a more comprehensive

understanding of how temporal representations are

affected, it has a mere connection to perception.

Arguably, the lack of vertical representations of

time in English makes its speakers unavailable to

apply it under vertical circumstances. Still and all,

similar to Boroditsky (2001), if English speakers are

trained to use metaphors and think vertically in the

first place, they are highly capable of doing so. It’s

just that they’re more habituated to sagittal

metaphors. Other metaphors that do exist are less

prevalently used, such as “down the generation.” In a

word, it’s not the ways of thinking influenced by the

language but a tendency to select a specific way of

mental processing. While the studies confirm the

presence of a metaphoric effect, certain controversial

points still need to be discussed and carefully

examined.

Firstly, cultural differences. Are vertical

tendencies not based on language but on culture? Is

Does the Spatial-Temporal Metaphor in Mandarin and English Inﬂuence Time Perception?

117

this effect salient when cultural factors are present?

The presence of potential cultural differences may

explain why Taiwanese and Mainland Chinese have

different language habits and cause them to have

different preferences in thinking about time (Chen,

2007; Chen and O'Seaghdha, 2013). The direction of

the writing system is one cultural habit that varies

regionally. Even in Mainland China, Mandarin

speakers in different regions may denote time with a

wide range of different idioms, which are not

potentially measurable. Let alone English speakers in

different countries, American English speakers in

different states, and so on. Studies do bring up the

issue of the writing system but fail to manipulate

cultural factors in their experiments. Priming images

could vary in their cultural elements and thus generate

culture-specific systems related to temporal

metaphors (Boroditsky et al., 2011; Yang et al.,

2022). For example, the cultural affinity of Jet Li and

Brad Pitt is different. This effect is proven to exist but

is yet to be carefully controlled and compared with

the canonical effect (Miles et al., 2011). This issue

can be solved by further analysis with more cultural

factors involved. Regional differences can be

compensated by sampling participants grown up in

the same area with different mother languages while

controlling factors like writing systems, role models,

and so on.

Secondly, bilingualism. While comparing

Mainland Chinese and American underlies the

interference of cultural aspects, comparing Mandarin-

English bilinguals and native English speakers may

involve complicated interactions between L1 and L2.

These interactions are not sufficiently studied

regarding this aspect. L1 and L2 are believed to affect

one another under the other’s condition (Lai et al.,

2013). Although some bilingual behaviors are

compared to monolingual Mandarin and English, the

logic behind it and the role bilingualism plays remain

undetermined (Yang et al., 2022). Even though the

nonlinguistic paradigm has little linguistic instruction

during the experiment, there is always a potential

inclination towards a side. A comprehensive

examination of language effect in the experiment is

crucial.

Thirdly, awareness of vertical perception. If

vertical temporal metaphors affect how Mandarin

speakers perceive time, it’s not only just a tendency

to choose to display time using physical

representations. Speakers’ tendencies and

preferences to apply a way of thinking are different.

Do temporal metaphors intervene consciously? When

the linguistic characteristic is seldom intentionally

applied, it would imply that the presence of

metaphors is not necessarily related to mental

representations; then, results from previous studies

could be the consequence of forced choices.

Naturalistic settings are required to examine this

effect. The actual habits (based on popularity) should

demonstrate further inferences from Mandarin

corpora directly based on vertical perceptions.

Interviews or surveys can be conducted to ask for

quotidian applications of vertical metaphors.

5 CONCLUSION

From the discussion above, we may conclude that

spatial-temporal metaphors do affect time

perceptions in certain ways, but with several

questions open to be answered. The progress of

Mandarin-English comparison delineates a new

perception of linguistic relativity. Traditional

linguistic determinism and some neo-Whorfian

aspects are discovered to be exaggerated. Language,

in this case, does slightly influence our ways of

thinking and generate an inclination toward

pragmatic uses. Some studies argue that language

affects some of our cognitive abilities, such as color

discrimination or spatial reasoning (Winawer et al.,

2007; Levinson et al., 2001). Others support a weaker

statement that language affects our ways of thinking,

such that metaphors process an emotional implication

through framing (Hendricks et al., 2018). Language

may also solely provide a tendency to certain ways of

thinking (Boroditsky et al., 2011). Either way,

language does somehow affect cognition. However, it

is important to carefully examine the statement within

each aspect. The actual effect and the aspect of

cognition affected should be elaborated. With all

these supports, linguistic relativity is not false in its

essence but also not universal to answer all cognitive

linguistic questions. It is scrabbled through multiple

aspects and understood based on multiple

perspectives. The complexity of sociocultural factors

and cognitive factors makes a conclusion within a

framework ungeneralizable to other scenarios, while

investigations on linguistic relativity provide us

insightful knowledge about our cognition.

This study provides insights into the influence of

spatial-temporal metaphors on mental representations

of time between Mandarin and English, contributing

to the discussion of linguistic relativity, though

without a quantitative analysis of all past papers

regarding the topic. More comprehensive meta-

analyses should be conducted to summarize

achievements and produce new insights as Gumperz

& Levinson (1996). While past books and papers

IESD 2025 - International Conference on Innovative Education and Social Development

118

mostly focused on qualitative analysis, combining

quantitative data with theories is important to reach a

holistic view.

REFERENCES

Bergen, B. K., & Chan, T. T. 2005. Writing direction

influences spatial cognition. Proceedings of the Annual

Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 27, 27.

Bergen, B. K., & Chan, T. T. 2012. Writing direction affects

how people map space into time. Frontiers in

Psychology, 3, 109.

Boroditsky, L. 2000. Metaphoric structuring:

understanding time through spatial metaphors.

Cognition 75: 1-28.

Boroditsky, L. 2001. Does Language Shape Thought?

Mandarin and English Speakers’ Conceptions of Time.

Cognitive Psychology 43: 1–22.

Boroditsky, L., Fuhrman, O., & McCormick, K. 2011. Do

English and Mandarin speakers think about time

differently? Cognition 118: 123–129.

Chen, J. Y. 2007. Do Chinese and English speakers think

about time differently? Failure of replicating

Boroditsky (2001). Cognition 104: 427–436.

Chen, J. Y., & O’Seaghdha, P. G. 2013. Do Mandarin and

English speakers think about time differently? Review

of existing evidence and some new data. Journal of

Chinese Linguistics 41: 338–358.

Chomsky, N. 2006. Language and Mind. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Frank, M. C., Everett, D. L., Fedorenko, E., & Gibson, E.

2008. Number as a cognitive technology: Evidence

from Pirahã language and cognition. Cognition 108:

819–824.

Fuhrman, O., & Boroditsky, L. 2010. Cross‐cultural

differences in mental representations of time: Evidence

from an implicit nonlinguistic task. Cognitive Science

34: 1430–1451.

Gumperz, J. J., & Levinson, S. C. 1996. Rethinking

linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Hallaste, P. P. 2013. Pinker’s Dilemma: Why linguistic

relativity is neither false in principle nor trivial.

Hendricks, R. K., Demjén, Z., Semino, E., & Boroditsky,

L. 2018. Emotional implications of metaphor:

Consequences of metaphor framing for mindset about

cancer. Metaphor and Symbol 33: 267–279.

January, D., & Kako, E. 2007. Re-evaluating evidence for

linguistic relativity: Reply to Boroditsky (2001).

Cognition 104: 417–426.

Lai, V. T., & Boroditsky, L. 2013. The immediate and

chronic influence of spatio-temporal metaphors on the

mental representations of time in English, Mandarin,

and Mandarin-English speakers. Frontiers in

Psychology 4, 142.

Levinson, S. C., Kita, S., Haun, D. B. M., & Rasch, B. H.

2002. Returning the tables: language affects spatial

reasoning. Cognition 84: 155–188.

Li, P., & Gleitman, L. 2002. Turning the tables: language

and spatial reasoning. Cognition 83: 265–294.

Miles, L. K., Tan, L., Noble, G. D., Lumsden, J., & Macrae,

C. N. 2011. Can a mind have two time lines? Exploring

space-time mapping in Mandarin and English speakers.

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 18: 598–604.

Pinker, S. 1994. The Language Instinct: How the Mind

Creates Language. New York: Harper Collins.

Pinker, S. 2007. The Stuff of Thought: Language as a

Window into Human Nature. London: Penguin Group.

Whorf, B. L. 1940. Science and linguistics. Technology

Review 42: 229-231.

Whorf, B. L. 1956. Language, thought, and reality:

selected writings. Cambridge: Technology Press of

Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Winawer, J., Witthoft, N., Frank, M. C., Wu, L., Wade, A.

R., & Boroditsky, L. 2007. Russian blues reveal effects

of language on color discrimination. PNAS 104: 7780–

7785.

Yang, W., Gu, Y., Fang, Y., & Sun, Y. 2022. Mental

representations of time in English monolinguals,

Mandarin monolinguals, and Mandarin–English

bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology 13, 791197.

Does the Spatial-Temporal Metaphor in Mandarin and English Inﬂuence Time Perception?

119