Memory & Cognition

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 438–449 | Cite as

How the physicality of space affects how we think about time

  • Jennifer Kolesari
  • Laura Carlson


Time is an abstract concept that may be better understood when mapped onto space. For English speakers, typically a timeline is used that runs horizontally from left (past) to right (future) (Boroditsky, Fuhrman, & McCormick, 2011) and can be separated into regions, past and future. However, it is unclear from prior research how these regions along the timeline are differentiated. In addition, although for English speakers time is typically thought of in terms of a left–right axis, gestures and metaphors that conceptualize the past as behind and the future as ahead are prevalent, implicating the use of a front–back axis. In three experiments, participants made temporal judgments of pictures while holding their hands in various positions around their bodies, to assess whether the body or hands or both are used as anchors to differentiate regions and whether the front–back axis can be used as a timeline. In Experiment 1 we found independent influences of the body and the hands in anchoring the left–right axis. In Experiment 2 we found support for the use of the front–back axis to map time, with independent influences of the body and the hands in anchoring this axis as well. In Experiment 3 we demonstrated that the timeline must be configured in a way that is consistent with underlying conceptualizations of time, by showing that the above–below axis is not used for English speakers. Together, these results indicate that time is mapped onto space, with this mapping being constrained by underlying conceptualizations of time.


Space Time Front–back Left–right 


  1. Bergen, B. K., & Chan Lau, T. T. (2012). Writing direction affects how people map space onto time. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 109. doi: CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Blom, S., & Semin, G. (2013). Moving events in time: Time-referent hand–arm movements influence perceived temporal distance to past events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 319–322. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75, 1–28. doi:
  4. Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 1–22. doi:
  5. Boroditsky, L., Fuhrman, O., & McCormick, K. (2011). Do English and Mandarin speakers think about time differently? Cognition, 118, 123–129. doi: CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Brebner, J., Shephard, M., & Cairney, P. (1972). Spatial relationships and S–R compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 36, 1–15. doi:
  7. Bush, L. K., Hess, U., & Wolford, G. (1993). Transformations for within-subject designs: A Monte Carlo investigation. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 566–579. doi: CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlson, L. A. (2003). Using spatial language. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 43, pp. 127–161). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi: Google Scholar
  9. Carlson, L. A., & van Deman, S. R. (2004). The space in spatial language. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 418–436. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Casasanto, D., & Jasmin, K. (2012). The hands of time: Temporal gestures in English speakers. Cognitive Linguistics, 23. doi:
  11. Chen, J. (2007). Do Chinese and English speakers think about time differently? Failure of replicating Boroditsky (2001). Cognition, 104, 427–436. doi: CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen, J., & O’Seaghdha, P. (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.Google Scholar
  13. Cho, Y., & Proctor, R. (2003). Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus– response compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 45–73. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark, H. (1973). Space, time, semantics, and the child. In T. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 27–63). New York, NY: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dittrich, K., Dolk, T., Rothe-Wulf, A., Klauer, K., & Prinz, W. (2013). Keys and seats: Spatial response coding underlying the joint spatial compatibility effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, 1725–1736. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Franklin, N., Henkel, L., Zangas, T. (1995). Parsing surrounding space into regions. Memory and Cognition, 23, 397–407. doi: CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Fuhrman, O., & Boroditsky, L. (2010). Cross-cultural differences in mental representations of time: Evidence from an implicit nonlinguistic task. Cognitive Science, 34, 1430–1451. doi: CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Fuhrman, 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: CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hill, C. (1982). Up/down, front/back, left/right: A contrastive study of Hausa and English. Pragmatics and Beyond, 3, 13–42.Google Scholar
  20. Hommel, B. (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta Psychologica, 136, 189–202. doi: CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Ishihara, M., Keller, P., Rossetti, Y., & Prinz, W. (2008). Horizontal spatial representations of time: Evidence for the STEARC effect. Cortex, 44, 454–461. doi: CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kolesari, J., & Carlson, L. (2017). Scaling the space that we use to understand time. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
  23. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. doi:
  24. Levelt, W. (1984). Some perceptual limitations on talking about space. In A. J. van Doorn, W. A. de Grind, & J. J. Koenderink (Eds.), Limits on perception (pp. 323–358). Utrecht, The Netherlands: VNU Science Press.Google Scholar
  25. Levelt, W. (1996). Perspective taking and ellipsis in spatial descriptions. In P. Bloom, M. F. Garrett, L. Nadel, & M. A. Peterson (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 77–108). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Levinson, S. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslinguistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 108–169). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Li, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (1995). Forward and backward recall: Different retrieval processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 837–847. doi: Google Scholar
  28. Logan, G. D. (1994). Spatial attention and the apprehension of spatial relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 1015–1036. doi: PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. McGlone, M. S., & Harding, J. L. (1998). Back (or forward?) to the future: The role of perspective in temporal language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1211–1223. doi: Google Scholar
  30. 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 & Review, 18, 598–604. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nicoletti, R., Anzola, G. P., Luppino, G., Rizzolatti, G., & Umiltà, C. (1982). Spatial compatibility effects on the same side of the body midline. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 664–673. doi: PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Roswarski, T., & Proctor, R. (2000). Auditory stimulus–response compatibility: Is there a contribution of stimulus-hand correspondence? Psychological Research, 63, 148–158. doi: CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Stins, J. F., & Michaels, C. F. (2000). Stimulus–response compatibility for absolute and relative spatial correspondence in reaching and in button pressing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 569–589. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Torralbo, A., Santiago, J., & Lupiáñez, J. (2006). Flexible conceptual projection of time onto spatial frames of reference. Cognitive Science, 30, 745–757. doi: CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Tversky, B., Kugelmass, S., & Winter, A. (1991). Cross-cultural and developmental trends in graphic productions. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 515–557. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wallace, R. (1971). S–R compatibility and the idea of a response code. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 354–360.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Weger, U., & Pratt, J. (2008). Time flies like an arrow: Space–time compatibility effects suggest the use of a mental timeline. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 426–430. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations