Hello Everyone,
Please read the Boroditsky article and write a discussion board post by 9PM Monday, October 24th. Jihyeon and Beija will lead this discussion. Remember that our meetings should function as whole-group discussions. Whereas some consistently contribute every week, others do not. This will be the last time I mention it because I don't want to sound like a broken record, but in-class discussion is 15% of the final grade. Plan accordingly.
See you at 3PM on Wednesday, October 26th.
Hope you all have a nice weekend!
Best,
Dr. Braasch
I really liked the article this week, I appreciated the way it was presented and written as I have very little prior knowledge to this topic. With that being said, I was immediately intrigued by the research question and how time was conceptualized differently across cultures. Time is such a difficult and complex issues/factor in research that I wanted to know if there were any other major concepts that varied like this across cultures and researcher. I found a YouTube talk that Boroditsky did, it was really great and I highly recommend checking it out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHulvUwgFWo I saw in the comments where one person’s native language was Hungarian and they had no sense of gender in their language, no masculine or feminine and that this is the same for Romanian. The only other language I have ever attempted to learn is Spanish, which is dependent on a differentiation between masculine and feminine and I am curious how this affects thought processes.
ReplyDeleteAgain we are seeing how difficult cross cultural research can be, however it is so interesting. In terms of replication I think it would be interesting to see Experiment 3 done the opposite. What if we trained Mandarin speakers to talk about time using horizontal terms and see if they produce results similar to English speakers? I also found it interesting that the study with color did not produce similar findings. They attributed this to the fact that color precedes language in evolution and language, very interesting. So could we look at other domains that develop before language? I decided to do some research in what Piaget would say about develop of these types of domains, and began with the sensorimotor stage. The development of the emotion fear is one domain that sticks out to me as something that could be interesting to look at cross culturally. If we could see how different languages and cultures shape thoughts and conceptualizations of fear, what would we see? Would there be a difference? I did a little research on this and found that it was believed that culture and language could not affect the emotion or thought of fear because it is automatic and takes place in the amygdala. However, one study did show that different cultures responded faster than others in responding to fear while their physiological measurement of the amygdala remained the same. This indicates that culture and language do play some role with a complex emotion like fear. I would how language directly plays into this? In some cultures, fear is seen as a very negative emotion to have especially for men? So in this context are there certain linguistic patterns that cause us to think this way? Other cultures could see fear as a more natural and less negative part of life, could this be because of the way the speak about fear?
This article focuses on a very interesting question: does language shape thoughts. I, as a Mandarin speaker myself, have never noticed that Mandarin speakers use both horizontal and vertical terms to talk about time before I read this article. After reading this article, it totally makes sense to me and I do think it is a brilliant idea to discover the influence of language on thought from different conceptions of time between Mandarin speakers and English speakers. In addition, I like the way the author organized the article, but I have trouble understanding the third limitation. The author said that evidence collected using explicit measures is not convincing as nonlinguistic evidence, so there is a need to use implicit measures in a non-language-specific task. Is nonlinguistic task the same as non-language-specific task? In terms of research design, I am curious to know how the author decided on the number of trials, primes, targets, and fillers if I am going to replicate this study. Another interesting finding in this article is that the age of acquisition of English matters in terms of the extent to which Mandarin-English speakers think time vertically, not the length of exposure to English. I wonder why this happened, is that because if Mandarin speakers learn English late, they have built a relatively stronger language system than those learn English early?
ReplyDeleteAs regard to replication, I think it would be interesting to see if we can replicate this study on other topics to test whether language shapes the way we understand the world across cultures. For example, a lot of people in China (at least in my hometown) tend to used north, south, east, and west to talk about directions when other people asking the way to a location. I do not know whether this is true or not, just based on my experience, that I found a lot of people I met in the United States are more likely to use left and right to describe directions. But conceptual replication is difficult because when we try to minimize differences in nonlinguistic cultural factors (study 3), the topic or task we choose or design should be considered carefully. Because if the training tasks are too difficult for one group, the results may be different.
Boroditsky used ingenious methods for examining how language shapes our thoughts about an abstract concept such as time in these three experiments based on sound theoretical grounding, so this was an interesting read. I appreciate how each experiment built from the gained knowledge of the previous experiments to further explore the phenomenon, a valuable technique I think for any area of science. To me, it only makes sense that the language that shapes our initial understanding of these concepts affects how we think about them. This makes me wonder, though, what other way is there to express abstract concepts other than language? Since we cannot physically show these abstract concepts and can merely describe them, of course language will be a “powerful tool for shaping abstract thought.” I suppose in some ways this article left me wondering, “so what?” but I suppose it does reveal very interesting information about how language affects abstract thought and gives ground for further exploring language differences.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, this article brought up several questions regarding replication and how we may apply it to further understand how language affects not only this area of thinking about time, but possibly other abstract areas.
First and foremost, while reading this I began thinking of how thinking about time seems to differ in other cultures (particularly “island time” came to mind). While I don’t know much about these cultures or their languages (such as Hawaiian), it would be interesting to examine if we see this same sort of effect of language affecting thoughts and perceptions about time (how fast or slow it moves, in this case). If this was the case, it could provide further evidence that language strongly affects thinking about abstract concepts.
Could other abstract concepts be explored using this sort of experimental technique as well? Time seems like an obvious concept to explore this way, but perhaps that’s because Boroditsky laid it out so nicely in this article. I suppose it would depend on what concept and how it differs in language in culture, but I am curious to see if anybody else has any input/ideas of any possible abstract concepts that could be examined as Boroditsky did.
I had never thought about how or why we describe time the way we do. I think it’s interesting that Mandarin uses an, if not unique, significantly different predominant way of describing time than English uses. It is a step of logic I never would have thought of, to see if this difference in how time is described can be indicative of an overall difference in ways of thinking. I’m not really comfortable with how they primed participants, but it seems that this way has been effective in the past, so my discomfort is likely unfounded. I also didn’t like that all participants were tested in English. However, as they mentioned in their limitation section, it may be best to avoid possible mistranslations. Despite that, though, I still think there are possible ways around this, and that native Mandarin speakers should have been tested in Mandarin to, for lack of better phrasing coming to mind, even the playing field. I think they may have found even more significant results if native Mandarin speakers were already thinking in Mandarin due to the task being in Mandarin. In the end though, since error rates were the same, I suppose it doesn’t really matter.
ReplyDeleteI’m glad that they expanded on the results of their first study, since replication is all well and good, but new knowledge is even better. A concern I had about their design for the second study, though, comes from their statement, “nor did [participants] figure [the pattern] out in the course of the experiment.” It seems a bit of an assumption to say this.
Experiment 3 seems to be the next logical step, and a vital one, to assess the degree to which language is the deciding factor, rather than cultural norms. I love how eloquently this experiment goes, “no seriously, it’s the language.” That there was no significant difference between trained English speakers and native Mandarin speakers astounded me. They say trained English speakers even answered quicker, though they don’t give any indication of significance.
I wasn’t too clear on the issue with colors being object-concepts; if someone could explain that, I’d really appreciate it.
If I read this correctly, it seems that the direction in which the languages are read is classified as a non-linguistic cultural factor... Can this be right? It seems that the way a language is written is, in fact, something about the language. Of course, it can be difficult to separate culture and language, but to count spoken language (in terms of, for instance, phonetics) and not written language (in terms of, for instance, directionality) seems arbitrary.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why the wording is "language one is thinking for." This implies that one thinks and then translated into some kind of language, or that one's thought is built to fit some language. Rather, there are good reasons to believe that speaking or writing is itself thinking - that thinking and language, when both are involved, are one phenomenon and not two, one of which is fit for the other.
It isn't clear to me that "before" and "after" are spatial (SPATIOtemporal) terms at all. If they are, it seems like they are - at best - temporal terms that are metaphorically applied to the spatial domain.
I wrote a few paragraphs about presuppositions in the experiments, and how the hypotheses didn't seem like they had taken into account everything they should have. Yet, the conclusions - over and over again - surprised me. Each time the conclusions seemed to be well-anticipated. For someone like me, who does not have a background in experimental design, that was pretty impressive.
I thought this article was absolutely fascinating. Language acquisition is one of my favorite developmental topics. When I first read the assertion that language impacts how one thinks about time, my gut reaction was, “Of course it does!” It seems like such a logical deduction (to me at least) and I was excited to read the results of the three experiments in this article that supported that claim. One thing that struck me while reading each of the design sections was just how long the test was for each participant. I wonder how test fatigue might have impacted the results. I realize that the questions were completely randomized for each test, but still. In experiment 2 there were 320 questions total for each participant. That seems like an insane amount to me.
ReplyDeleteI had some trouble fully grasping how Mandarin describes time vertically so I appreciated the figures that gave some examples. I was a little surprised that native English speakers in experiment 3 were able to grasp the new way of thinking so quickly. The results were strong though, and definitely supported the idea that cultural differences do not have an effect on how time is conceptualized.
Thinking about replication, it would be interesting to teach Mandarin-only speakers how to think about time in an English way, to see if the results of experiment 3 could be repeated for a different group of people. It would also be interesting to find another abstract concept that two languages describe differently and investigate them. It’s hard to think of an example, unfortunately! I think this will be a great article to discuss in class and I’m especially looking forward to Dr. Huette’s presentation on it.
This is my favorite part about this class- being continually introduced to topics/ideas that probably would have never crossed my mind. Hooray for another cool article!
ReplyDeleteBoroditsky did a knockout job examining this question of whether language shapes our conception of time. While the research was incredibly innovative, I think it's also important to note that not many researchers will have access to such a perfect sample. This would probably be a difficult study to directly replicate, but I think the possibility of conceptual replication is definitely there. I would like to see this study done on other languages as well, maybe Spanish or Arabic. Although I have never studied another language besides Spanish, I always thought it was interesting how much emphasis Spanish placed on gender, so I am curious to know if that would shape how Spanish-speakers conceptualize time. Is time masculine or feminine, etc...
As far as time goes, I also wonder how this concept plays out in day to day life. In America (or at least urban America) it seems like people are always in a hurry. Time moves too quickly, there are not enough hours in a day, people are always running out of time. In Spain, however, time moves slowly and people never seem to be in a rush (even having time for a midday siesta!). I wonder how these concepts of time relate back to language and how we speak about time. I hope that makes sense...kind of a difficult topic to put into words.
Looking forward to discussing this article!
Reading through Boroditsky’s article, I thought that the author found a particularly simple, yet elegant, way of testing the hypotheses. Each manipulation was able to adjust the foci slightly to provide a fairly comprehensive picture of the influence of language on thought from fairly basic tasks. This simplicity has great importance for replication. Specifically, given that research on the interaction of thought and language can become particularly complex, developing a direct and straightforward method such as that presented here significantly increases one’s opportunity to replicate specific findings. Further, the methods used could conceivably be applied to additional concepts beyond time (applying my horizontal conception), as well as to different languages and developmental backgrounds, eventually providing an even clearer picture of the effects discussed. In particular, I would be interested in seeing additional research on the distinction between concrete and abstract concepts. As I was reading the article, I continued to think about this distinction, as language would seem to have an inherently greater influence on abstract concepts, the very existence of which is bounded by language and prone to potential adaptation over time. I was glad to see that the researchers also mentioned this in their discussion section. Pushing this one step further, I also wonder if any differences may be seen among various types of abstract concepts, possibly those with greater underlying connotation compared to those with more neutral underlying meaning.
ReplyDeleteFinally, while this article does not directly lie within my specific field, the topic has been a long debated one across psychology and education in general, particularly as it applies to development. Specifically, the article reminded me of the quintessential debate between Piagetian and Vygotskian schools of thought on the interaction of language and learning/thought. While Piagetian researchers have historically taken the perspective that cognitive development and “thought” precedes language and follows universal sequencing, providing the necessary foundations for language, Vygotskian researchers have argued for a far more pivotal role of language (and culture), stating that language can actually in its own right precede and drive development. As with everything, it would seem that the most accurate current understanding would be a combination of the two, and I believe the findings in this article could provide some rudimentary information on the subject, as the findings seem to support heterogeneity in concepts dependent on language while also highlighting the importance of more universal developmental components, such as the age of acquisition. It would be interesting to see how the influence of language on thought operates in a more complex context such as learning, for instance examining whether language differences in the conception of time then have differential influences on learning material that builds upon or utilizes such notions (e.g. physics, etc.). This could then be expanded to address more complex questions, such as whether students that can use a combination of spatial terms, or be taught to do so, may then be able to better learn multidimensional forms of thinking. This could be particularly insightful the more we push to increase abstraction in order to understand certain areas of science and physics (such as how a satellite lacks both direction and sidedness, being neither upside-down nor right-side up, as is also true when you consider any object from an expanded frame of reference that we are currently trying much harder to comprehend).
Having studied abroad in China and gotten a minor in Mandarin Chinese, I found this article extremely fascinating. I’ve always wondered about how the subtleties in language structuring and the differing conceptualizations of words could influence cognition. In fact, there are a bit of things about the written language that I felt that the article didn’t directly address—Such as the fact that the words like shang and xia are represented pictographically as vertical concepts, not just within other forms of metaphorical speech. Shang (上) and xia (下) are two of the words that are used to describe temporal relationships of earlier/later, and in fact are used as “add-ons” to months (among other temporal devices) to express things like next January （下个一月） or last summer (上个夏天). If you look at the very pictographs themselves, there is this notion of time being vertical—letting alone that they can be used to describe vertical positions, like on top of the table （在桌子上). I’m curious to what extent the pictographs themselves might serve as primers for a vertical concept of time.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I wonder whether these pictographic representations can have an impact on the extent of vertical concepts of time— I’d be interested to see perhaps how Mandarin speakers who are illiterate might conceptualize time, since they might not access these visual representations as easily. The fact that the participants were all Stanford undergraduates and graduate students limits the generalizability of the study, since you would expect them to have higher IQs, and obviously a proficiency in reading. With regards to replication, I am curious whether or not these same effects might be reproduced for English speakers who are learning Chinese—To what extent would you be able to expect a bias for horizontal thinking when asked questions in Chinese?
This paper is very interesting one staring with a very interesting question, how language shapes our thoughts? I speak English as a second language but I did not see anything like horizontal and vertical in my first language Bangla. The method section of the paper is very state forward and the author did nice job to put all the methodological thing together.
ReplyDeleteIn this study the author did run three different experiment to explore the idea of how language shape human being’s thought. The key findings in the experiment was mandarin speakers were more likely to think about time vertically when deciding which month comes first, either March comes first then April. Moreover, Mandarin speaker way of thinking about time is about English sentences.
In experiment 2 showed that the acquisition of semantic biases (e.g. such as a habit of thinking about time vertically or horizontally) decreases decrease at the age which second language exposure begin. In addition, the acquisition of the semantic biases is affected by the same variables as the acquisition of basic language skills.
In experiment 3 both mandarin and English speaker produced similar results in producing vertical terms after giving them short training from experiment two. And based on this finding the author terminated that the effect of language shape depends on the human’s thought not the culture. For instance, their might be difference in the way language shape thought in between an English(American) and Bangla (Bangladeshi) speaker is because of language difference not because of their ethnicity. Taken together these findings make a strong case for language shaping habitual thought.
Language is such a powerful tool that helps to shape our thought. Language play important role when human being’s sensory motor information does not work properly or scarce.
Finally, I liked this week reading. Hope we will have a wonderful conversation in the class.
I found this wee’s article to be incredibly interesting. I work a lot in the domain of language so I find this topic to be particularly thought-provoking. We have talked as a class about how cultural differences can have a huge impact on how individuals process and relate to the world and I think that the differences in processing language between cultures are an important aspect of replicating experiments across cultures. I found the experiments conducted by Boroditsky to be excellently presented seemed to be follow a logical succession. I would also be interested in whether or not these results would replicate if researchers looked at native English who learned to speak Mandarin. These experiments were conducted in English so I think it would be interesting to see if the same results would be found if the studies were conducted in Mandarin.
ReplyDeleteIt seemed to me that the basic question of the article was, are there cultural differences in how we relate to abstract concepts (such as time) that determine how we think and talk about them? I think time is an interesting concept because it is so abstract. Another way I would be interested in seeing cultural differences in this concept is the metaphor of time as a commodity or finite resource. In the US time is constantly conceptualized this way (buying time or running out of time) and I wonder if other cultures has this same linguistic framework for conceptualizing it? In this case, did the language we use to describe the phenomenon of the passage of time come from english language limitations which affected how we as a culture conceptualize time? Perhaps I have gone down a rabbit hole with this..
The article for this week was extremely interesting for me, as the concepts discussed in this article are among one of the more prominent ideas in linguistic anthropology where “Linguistic Determinism” has been referred to, largely, as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, instead (in acknowledgement of the influence of Edward Sapir on this work). However, I have not seen much discussion of this in psychological research until now.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting, as well, that the concept of time was chosen in this study. One of the ideas Whorf frequently used in discussing the influence of language on thought was that of time. Specifically, he discussed the Hopi, who have a very complex understanding and description of time. A more simplistic point was that the Hopi did not see time as units progressing in sequence (e.g., days, weeks, months) and, as such, strange observations were made in regards to concepts of plurality. For example, we could, and frequently do, parse time into units and describe it as plural (e.g., Thanksgiving is 4 weeks away) the same way we would discuss an object as plural (e.g., there are 4 people in a car). In Hopi language, these would be described in completely different ways that are beyond my understanding. There are many other domains where anthropology has either looked at the influence of language on thought or, later, how language reflects differences in the relation/classification between “things” (e.g., Stephen Tyler believed culture could be viewed, almost entirely, by examining the linguistic classifications and relationships between “things” in a culture)
It certainly makes sense, as described by Boroditsky, that something as abstract and learned as time is more largely influenced by language than something as straightforward as object-recognition or basic, physical, actions (e.g., push). Time is very difficult to describe, in general, if one tries to explain it. In our attempts to explain it, it is also clear that we rely on far more abstract, language-based, concepts than we would to simply point out a ball (or that round shaped thing).
This article, then, also raises a question of a conceptual replication. If these differences are observed in relation to time, it would be interesting to see how they influenced other abstract ideas. For example, different ways of thinking, as well as some personality attributes, seem to be described with spatial references. For example, someone is “deep” if they focus on abstract or complex ideas, where someone is “shallow” if they focus on superficial topics. Different experiences can “bring you down” or they may “lift you up.” Even the effects of drugs may be described as “being high” or “coming down.” It would be interesting to compare how these spatial descriptions are represented within our own language, as well as in other languages.
After starting this and thinking about different abstract notions, I have begun to see how often different physical terms are used to describe abstract concepts. For example, relationships seem to be described, frequently, in physical terms, as well: you can be “close” or “distant,” “warm and loving” or “cold and distant,” “gentle” or “rough.” There are certainly a number of interesting comparisons that could be made in regards to how language affects our representation of abstract ideas, and how this may differ based on these seemingly trivial differences (e.g., vertical vs. horizontal).
I was very intrigued by the topic of this article. The fact that people who speak one language can think of concepts differently than someone who speaks another language is something that I have thought was interesting since my introduction to psychology course. I was a bit wary of the findings in this particular study at first because it was conducted in English even for the native Mandarin speakers, but it sounds like perhaps previous research has already looked at processing in the same language (like native Mandarin speakers doing an experiment in Mandarin), so processing across languages sounds like the next step.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like native Mandarin speakers use both horizontal and vertical time metaphors fairly equally in their language (or at least the Introduction of this paper made it sound like this). So I found it interesting that native Mandarin speakers responded faster after vertical priming compared to horizontal priming. I was concerned initially about their writing system, how they write vertically compared to horizontally, and how this may have influenced their results. Fortunately, they ended up addressing this concern in Experiment 3, and it did not seem to be driving the results. This research actually did a decent job of addressing my concerns. I had a concern at the end of each of the first two experiments, and the experiment that followed would address it.
I thought the way that Experiment 3 was set up was an interesting way to look at possible influences of culture on native Mandarin speakers. I think it would also be interesting to see research done on native English speakers that learn Mandarin. Do they still process faster after horizontal priming or is there also a benefit of vertical priming now?
Time perception is always a fascinating topic and adding in a dash bilingualism only spices things a little bit more. So much of how we think is tied up in the language that we use to represent our thoughts. Its such a subtle thing but something that we never really stop to consider. As somebody that often talks out loud to himself when thinking (which is normal right?) I can only imagine how different my thought process would be if my language was different or even if my language structure and writing structure was different. Thought influences language and language influences thought and time perception is no different.
ReplyDeleteI found all three experiments to be intriguing but I was particularly intrigued by Experiment 3 and examining the effects of a novel learned language on thought and understanding of time. It stands to reason that learning new ways to describe a domain would totally change how you think about it but it just blows my mind that changing language changes thought! Manipulations such as this further supports the notion that language and thought (especially in the domain of time) are tightly linked.
From a replication perspective, I would like to see Experiment 3 done a bit differently in that two groups of native speakers could be used and the two groups would have a native language that processes time in either a horizontal or vertical manner—not both. This would allow the speakers to be cross trained in each others orientations. Since the Mandarin native speakers process time both horizontally and vertically, I feel that this would make it more difficult to discern if the effect in transferable between the two orientations.
This week’s article is very interesting since the topic is well matched my research interests. There has been a long time debate on between these two arguments - language shapes how we think or thinking doesn't need linguistic domain -. My idea was that thinking itself comes before any domains and language is just a tool for conveying. But as I spend more time to be exposed by different language, I realized linguistic domain is also important especially in the case of making refined and elaborated thought.
ReplyDeleteIn this article, they tried to prove whether or not language shapes the way we think. Although the idea of linguistic determinism is untenable now, there are still interesting parts remained utilized into empirical experiments. I think the most brilliant part of this article is that the researchers use ‘time’ domain. As shown in this article, concept of time is universal, even though the ways of each different languages and cultures express. And choosing English and Chinese language whose way of expressing time has different direction to compare seems nice. And 3 experiments are simple and clear, it was very easy to understand. In some way, it seems somehow too simple to test the way of thought. So if I replicate this, I might adopt more complicated semantic structures of language and thinking, not just order of expression.
This week’s article is very interesting since the topic is well matched my research interests. There has been a long time debate on between these two arguments - language shapes how we think or thinking doesn't need linguistic domain -. My idea was that thinking itself comes before any domains and language is just a tool for conveying. But as I spend more time to be exposed by different language, I realized linguistic domain is also important especially in the case of making refined and elaborated thought.
ReplyDeleteIn this article, they tried to prove whether or not language shapes the way we think. Although the idea of linguistic determinism is untenable now, there are still interesting parts remained utilized into empirical experiments. I think the most brilliant part of this article is that the researchers use ‘time’ domain. As shown in this article, concept of time is universal, even though the ways of each different languages and cultures express. And choosing English and Chinese language whose way of expressing time has different direction to compare seems nice. And 3 experiments are simple and clear, it was very easy to understand.
In some way, it seems somehow too simple to test the way of thought. So if I replicate this, I might adopt more complicated semantic structures of language and thinking, not just order of expression. There should be an another universal domain to test, such as directions, math or some physics problem, and the spatial relationship between two neutral objects (ex. cup is on the table, car key is under the shelves). I think testing these domains with different languages also could give a interesting results for language-thought or thought-language debates.
The paper opens wit a seemingly straight forward question, do languages change how you think? By reading this first line, I already know the answer but the idea is really interesting and one I haven't really thought of.
ReplyDeleteThe example they studied is rather simple and very specific (thinking about time horizontally vs vertically, spatially), it reminds me immediately of the idea that "everything is a metaphor", which I discussed in a previous class (Stephanie's?). The gist I took away from that is it is basically impossible to speak about something literally, no matter what we are using metaphors, regardless of how simple.
If we assume that it is true that everything we say is a metaphor, then it seems logical that the language is going to have a big impact on how we think, since it will shape our metaphors (literally... ha).
Unfortunately, I don't really think the results from Experiment 1 supports the author's claim (although I do believe the claim is true). Looking at Fig. 4a and 4b, my first instinct is just that they are faster at what they are used to (they are used to the vertical metaphor) and that metaphors are difficult for second language speakers. I wouldn't say this shapes how they think, just that they have been trained to use this particular idiom and using something different takes more processing to ensure it is correct. For example, if you were to speak to me and use some metaphor I wasn't used to, I may be able to figure it out but it would certainly take me more time.
I do think Experiment 2 did a better job of getting at how they are "thinking" about time. I think some cool experiments in the future to test this effect would involve the participants constructing something, perhaps not sentences but visual representations. I don't know any Chinese but it would also be cool to look into ideas other than time (color?).
I have a hard time interpreting Experiment 3 but having these 3 different experiments that triangulate does convince me that there is a difference here for sure.
Good stuff, I really liked this paper!
I forgot to bring up replication: I have a hunch that this would replicate very well given participants with similar ages and experience with English/Mandarin on these same tasks. The results are just so cleanly delineated and I really buy the narrative.
DeleteWhat I'm curious about is how it would work for other ideas, other than time though.