Cargando…
Not When But Whether: Modality and Future Time Reference in English and Dutch
Previous research on linguistic relativity and economic decisions hypothesized that speakers of languages with obligatory tense marking of future time reference (FTR) should value future rewards less than speakers of languages which permit present tense FTR. This was hypothesized on the basis of obl...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10077917/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36655934 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13224 |
_version_ | 1785020406973857792 |
---|---|
author | Robertson, Cole Roberts, Seán G. |
author_facet | Robertson, Cole Roberts, Seán G. |
author_sort | Robertson, Cole |
collection | PubMed |
description | Previous research on linguistic relativity and economic decisions hypothesized that speakers of languages with obligatory tense marking of future time reference (FTR) should value future rewards less than speakers of languages which permit present tense FTR. This was hypothesized on the basis of obligatory linguistic marking (e.g., will) causing speakers to construe future events as more temporally distal and thereby to exhibit increased “temporal discounting”: the subjective devaluation of outcomes as the delay until they will occur increases. However, several aspects of this hypothesis are incomplete. First, it overlooks the role of “modal” FTR structures which encode notions about the likelihood of future outcomes (e.g., might). This may influence “probability discounting”: the subjective devaluation of outcomes as the probability of their occurrence decreases. Second, the extent to which linguistic structures are subjectively related to temporal or probability discounting differences is currently unknown. To address these, we elicited FTR language and subjective ratings of temporal distance and probability from speakers of English, which exhibits strongly grammaticized FTR, and Dutch, which does not. Several findings went against the predictions of the previous hypothesis: Framing an FTR statement in the present (“Ellie arrives later on”) versus the future tense (“…will arrive…”) did not affect ratings of temporal distance; English speakers rated future statements as relatively more temporally proximal than Dutch speakers; and English and Dutch speakers rated future tenses as encoding high certainty, which suggests that obligatory future tense marking might result in less discounting. Additionally, compared with Dutch speakers, English speakers used more low‐certainty terms in general (e.g., may) and as a function of various experimental factors. We conclude that the prior cross‐linguistic observations of the link between FTR and psychological discounting may be caused by the connection between low‐certainty modal structures and probability discounting, rather than future tense and temporality. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10077917 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-100779172023-04-07 Not When But Whether: Modality and Future Time Reference in English and Dutch Robertson, Cole Roberts, Seán G. Cogn Sci Regular Article Previous research on linguistic relativity and economic decisions hypothesized that speakers of languages with obligatory tense marking of future time reference (FTR) should value future rewards less than speakers of languages which permit present tense FTR. This was hypothesized on the basis of obligatory linguistic marking (e.g., will) causing speakers to construe future events as more temporally distal and thereby to exhibit increased “temporal discounting”: the subjective devaluation of outcomes as the delay until they will occur increases. However, several aspects of this hypothesis are incomplete. First, it overlooks the role of “modal” FTR structures which encode notions about the likelihood of future outcomes (e.g., might). This may influence “probability discounting”: the subjective devaluation of outcomes as the probability of their occurrence decreases. Second, the extent to which linguistic structures are subjectively related to temporal or probability discounting differences is currently unknown. To address these, we elicited FTR language and subjective ratings of temporal distance and probability from speakers of English, which exhibits strongly grammaticized FTR, and Dutch, which does not. Several findings went against the predictions of the previous hypothesis: Framing an FTR statement in the present (“Ellie arrives later on”) versus the future tense (“…will arrive…”) did not affect ratings of temporal distance; English speakers rated future statements as relatively more temporally proximal than Dutch speakers; and English and Dutch speakers rated future tenses as encoding high certainty, which suggests that obligatory future tense marking might result in less discounting. Additionally, compared with Dutch speakers, English speakers used more low‐certainty terms in general (e.g., may) and as a function of various experimental factors. We conclude that the prior cross‐linguistic observations of the link between FTR and psychological discounting may be caused by the connection between low‐certainty modal structures and probability discounting, rather than future tense and temporality. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-01-19 2023-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10077917/ /pubmed/36655934 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13224 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Cognitive Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Cognitive Science Society (CSS). https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Regular Article Robertson, Cole Roberts, Seán G. Not When But Whether: Modality and Future Time Reference in English and Dutch |
title | Not When But Whether: Modality and Future Time Reference in English and Dutch |
title_full | Not When But Whether: Modality and Future Time Reference in English and Dutch |
title_fullStr | Not When But Whether: Modality and Future Time Reference in English and Dutch |
title_full_unstemmed | Not When But Whether: Modality and Future Time Reference in English and Dutch |
title_short | Not When But Whether: Modality and Future Time Reference in English and Dutch |
title_sort | not when but whether: modality and future time reference in english and dutch |
topic | Regular Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10077917/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36655934 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13224 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT robertsoncole notwhenbutwhethermodalityandfuturetimereferenceinenglishanddutch AT robertsseang notwhenbutwhethermodalityandfuturetimereferenceinenglishanddutch |