Temporal Direction and Reference Frames in Chinese and English: A Cross-Linguistic Analysis of Cognitive Framing in Time Expression
This study investigates cross-linguistic differences in temporal direction between Chinese and English by contrasting cognitive reference frames. We found that L1 Chinese speakers prefer the sequence reference frame, whereas L1 English speakers prefer the ego reference frame. These cross-linguistic differences can cause negative transfer for L1 Chinese learners of English. Two questionnaire experiments tested 278 adults: 94 L1 Chinese, 90 L1 English, and 94 L1 Chinese learners of English stratified by proficiency. Responses were scored dichotomously and analyzed with chisquare tests. Native speakers displayed clear, divergent preferences: L1 Chinese participants overwhelmingly employed a sequence reference frame, whereas L1 English participants favored an ego reference frame (χ² = 184, p < 0.001). L2 learners exhibited substantial L1 transfer: when English items required an ego interpretation, 63.8% of L2 learners selected a sequence reference response (χ² = 85.24, p < 0.001). Transfer declined with higher English proficiency (significant differences across proficiency groups, p < 0.001). When Chinese and English expressions conveyed the consistent temporal direction, negative transfer disappeared. These results indicate that apparent oppositions between Chinese and English arise from differences in dominant reference frame selection rather than from opposite observer orientations. Increased proficiency and targeted instruction that highlight reference-frame contrasts facilitate frame switching and reduce L1-based errors. These findings have implications for theories of temporal cognition and for L2 pedagogy.
Authors
- Rong Bao (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4054-9657)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Forum for Linguistic Studies
- Published
- 2025-10-15
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i10.11289
- Citations
- 1
- Primary Topic
- Language, Metaphor, and Cognition
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 2.12