When the days are(n’t) numbered: Calendar calculations in transparent and opaque systems
Calendar calculations, the process of computing the target day or month, exhibit peculiar differences across languages. In systems like English, calendar labels are largely opaque (Tuesday, August), which invites calculations to rely more heavily on verbal listing. In transparent systems, like Chine...
Saved in:
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2025-01-01
|
Series: | Language and Cognition |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1866980824000759/type/journal_article |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
_version_ | 1841526448301539328 |
---|---|
author | Ziyi Zhuang Norbert Vanek |
author_facet | Ziyi Zhuang Norbert Vanek |
author_sort | Ziyi Zhuang |
collection | DOAJ |
description | Calendar calculations, the process of computing the target day or month, exhibit peculiar differences across languages. In systems like English, calendar labels are largely opaque (Tuesday, August), which invites calculations to rely more heavily on verbal listing. In transparent systems, like Chinese, habitual labeling of calendar terms numerically (Tuesday = Day 2, August = Month 8) facilitates fast numerical operations instead of verbal listing. This study examines the effects that different levels of transparency of the calendar naming system may have on calculations in the speakers’ first and second language. Chinese–English bilinguals were tested alongside English and Chinese controls. Forced-choice calendar calculations (day, month, hour and year) and self-reported strategies were used as tasks to tap into participants’ calculation speed, accuracy and temporal reasoning. In the calculation questions, we manipulated Distance (short/long), Direction (forward/backward), Input (linguistic/numerical) and Boundary (within/across). More complex Month calculations significantly differed across groups while easier day calculations did not. The English group reported reliance on verbal listing while the Chinese and the Bilingual groups preferred numerical reasoning. These findings bring new evidence for linguistic relativity in the form of modulations of calendar processing speed changing as a function of linguistic transparency, input type and task demand. |
format | Article |
id | doaj-art-ac14c30a6ab94a6b8c6ee3e757ae1f1b |
institution | Kabale University |
issn | 1866-9808 1866-9859 |
language | English |
publishDate | 2025-01-01 |
publisher | Cambridge University Press |
record_format | Article |
series | Language and Cognition |
spelling | doaj-art-ac14c30a6ab94a6b8c6ee3e757ae1f1b2025-01-16T21:53:15ZengCambridge University PressLanguage and Cognition1866-98081866-98592025-01-011710.1017/langcog.2024.75When the days are(n’t) numbered: Calendar calculations in transparent and opaque systemsZiyi Zhuang0Norbert Vanek1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7805-184XSchool of Cultures, Languages and Linguistics, University of Auckland, Auckland, New ZealandSchool of Cultures, Languages and Linguistics, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Experimental Research on Central European Languages Lab, Charles University, Prague, CzechiaCalendar calculations, the process of computing the target day or month, exhibit peculiar differences across languages. In systems like English, calendar labels are largely opaque (Tuesday, August), which invites calculations to rely more heavily on verbal listing. In transparent systems, like Chinese, habitual labeling of calendar terms numerically (Tuesday = Day 2, August = Month 8) facilitates fast numerical operations instead of verbal listing. This study examines the effects that different levels of transparency of the calendar naming system may have on calculations in the speakers’ first and second language. Chinese–English bilinguals were tested alongside English and Chinese controls. Forced-choice calendar calculations (day, month, hour and year) and self-reported strategies were used as tasks to tap into participants’ calculation speed, accuracy and temporal reasoning. In the calculation questions, we manipulated Distance (short/long), Direction (forward/backward), Input (linguistic/numerical) and Boundary (within/across). More complex Month calculations significantly differed across groups while easier day calculations did not. The English group reported reliance on verbal listing while the Chinese and the Bilingual groups preferred numerical reasoning. These findings bring new evidence for linguistic relativity in the form of modulations of calendar processing speed changing as a function of linguistic transparency, input type and task demand.https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1866980824000759/type/journal_articlebilingual cognitioncalendar processinglinguistic relativity |
spellingShingle | Ziyi Zhuang Norbert Vanek When the days are(n’t) numbered: Calendar calculations in transparent and opaque systems Language and Cognition bilingual cognition calendar processing linguistic relativity |
title | When the days are(n’t) numbered: Calendar calculations in transparent and opaque systems |
title_full | When the days are(n’t) numbered: Calendar calculations in transparent and opaque systems |
title_fullStr | When the days are(n’t) numbered: Calendar calculations in transparent and opaque systems |
title_full_unstemmed | When the days are(n’t) numbered: Calendar calculations in transparent and opaque systems |
title_short | When the days are(n’t) numbered: Calendar calculations in transparent and opaque systems |
title_sort | when the days are n t numbered calendar calculations in transparent and opaque systems |
topic | bilingual cognition calendar processing linguistic relativity |
url | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1866980824000759/type/journal_article |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ziyizhuang whenthedaysarentnumberedcalendarcalculationsintransparentandopaquesystems AT norbertvanek whenthedaysarentnumberedcalendarcalculationsintransparentandopaquesystems |