1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Cognitive Linguistic Studies
  4. Volume 8, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 8, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson 1999) and the pervasiveness of metaphor and image-schematic structure in human conceptualization (Johnson 1987Hampe 2005) have been widely accepted among cognitive scientists as constructs that help explain non-spatial and temporal linguistic constructions. However, Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) might not be the whole story. While it is acceptable that moments in time can be construed as being analogous to points in space as in utterances such as vs. , there seems to be much more than previously thought. It turns out that time exhibits its own structure (following Evans 20042013Galton 2011) that is based on transience. This idea has made some scholars support the weak version of CMT which posits that the temporal meaning of prepositions is represented and processed independently of the corresponding spatial meanings (see Kemmerer 2005 for such a view). The present article supports the idea that spatial and temporal structures complement each other in order to achieve temporal conceptions. This is indeed a conceptual pattern showed by the English preposition that makes use of an extrinsic temporal reference to activate its temporal semantics. To analyze the different temporal realizations that may have, the paper aims to identify the topological structure that underlies the of this preposition. This allows us to appreciate how the spatio-conceptual structure of partially structures temporal conceptions. The paper also identifies the nature of the temporal structure that is involved in temporal realizations. The article concludes with some remarks, among them the pivotal role of the schematic temporal structure that is captured by the extrinsic temporal reference, and the role of conceptual metaphor in underdetermining temporal thinking.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00066.mor
2021-09-08
2024-10-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00066.mor
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allwood, J.
    (2003) Meaning potentials and context: Some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning. InH. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & J. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp.29–66). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219074.29
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219074.29 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barcelona, A.
    (Ed.) (2000) Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. (2011) Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. InR. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibañez, (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp.7–57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.02bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.02bar [Google Scholar]
  4. (2015) Metonymy. InE. Dabrowska & D. Divjak, D. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (Vol.39) (pp.143–167). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110292022‑008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-008 [Google Scholar]
  5. Barsalou, L. W., Santos, A., Simmons, W. K., & Wilson, C. D.
    (2008) Language and simulation in conceptual processing. InM. de Vega, A. Glenberg & A. Graesser (Eds.), Symbols, embodiment, and meaning (pp.245–283). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199217274.003.0013
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199217274.003.0013 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bergen, B. K.
    (2012) Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books (AZ).
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Casasanto, D., & Boroditsky, L.
    (2008) Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106(2), 579–593. 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.03.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  8. Clark, H. H.
    (1973) Space, time, semantics, and the child. InT. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and acquisition of language (pp.27–63). New York: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑505850‑6.50008‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-505850-6.50008-6 [Google Scholar]
  9. Corballis, M. C.
    (2011) The recursive mind: The origins of human language, thought, and civilization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Evans, V.
    (2004) The structure of time: Language, meaning, and temporal cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.12
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.12 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2009) How words mean: Lexical concepts, cognitive models, and meaning construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234660.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234660.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  12. (2010a) From the spatial to the non-spatial: The “state” lexical concepts of in, on and at. InV. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition and space: The state of the art and new directions (pp.215–248). London: Equinox publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. (2010b) On the nature of lexical concepts. Belgrade Journal of English Linguistics and Literature Studies (BELLS), 2, 11–46. 10.18485/bells.2010.2.1
     https://doi.org/10.18485/bells.2010.2.1 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2013) Language and time: A cognitive linguistics approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107340626
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107340626 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2015a) A unified account of polysemy within LCCM Theory. Lingua, doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2014.12.002 2014.12.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2015b) What’s in a concept?InE. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), The conceptual mind: New directions in the study of concepts (pp.251–290). Cambridge/Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Evans-Pritchard, E. E.
    (1940) Nuer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
    (2008) Rethinking metaphor. InR. Gibbs (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.53–66). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.005 [Google Scholar]
  19. Fillmore, C.
    (1982) Frame semantics. InThe Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp.111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G.
    (2005) The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 455–479. 10.1080/02643290442000310
     https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290442000310 [Google Scholar]
  21. Galton, A.
    (2011) Time flies but space doesn’t: limits to the spatialization of time. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 695–703. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hampe, B.
    (2005) Image schemas in cognitive linguistics: Introduction. InB. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp.1–12). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197532.0.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.0.1 [Google Scholar]
  23. Herskovits, A.
    (1986) Language and spatial cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. (1988) Spatial expressions and the plasticity of meaning. InB. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp.271–298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.50.11her
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.50.11her [Google Scholar]
  25. Holme, R.
    (2009) Cognitive linguistics and language teaching. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230233676
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230233676 [Google Scholar]
  26. Johnson, M.
    (1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reasoning. Chicago: Chicago University Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kemmerer, D.
    (2005) The spatial and temporal meanings of English prepositions can be independently impaired. Neuropsychologia, 43(5), 797–806. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.06.025
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.06.025 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. (1999) Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol I): Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. (1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. II): Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. (2000) Grammar and conceptualization [Cognitive Linguistics Research 14]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2009) Metonymic grammar. InK. U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.45–74). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/hcp.25.04lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.04lan [Google Scholar]
  36. Levinson, S.
    (2003) Space in language and cognition: Explorations in linguistic diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613609
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613609 [Google Scholar]
  37. Littlemore, J.
    (2009) Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230245259
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245259 [Google Scholar]
  38. Moore, K. E.
    (2006) Space-to-time mappings and temporal concepts. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2),199–244. 10.1515/COG.2006.005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.005 [Google Scholar]
  39. Morras, J.
    (2018) Base conceptual de la preposición entre y sus equivalentes de la lengua inglesa between, among, y amid: una perspectiva en lingüística cognitiva [Conceptual basis of entre and its English equivalents between, among and amid: A cognitive linguistic perspective]. RILEX. Revista sobre Investigaciones Léxicas, 1(2), 52–84. 10.17561/rilex.v1.n2.3
     https://doi.org/10.17561/rilex.v1.n2.3 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2020) Cognición temporal como requisito fundamental para las concepciones lingüísticas temporales: El caso de la preposición a [Temporal cognition as fundamental requisite for temporal linguistic conceptions: The case of the Spanish preposition a]. InM. Torres Martínez (Ed.), Investigaciones lexicográficas y lexicológicas: Nuevas perspectivas del estudio del léxico (pp.74–97). Jaén: Editorial de la Universidad de Jaén.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. (to appear). Semantic parameters, cognitive models, and mental units. To appear inCognitive Semantics.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Morras, J., & Barcelona, A.
    (2019) Conceptual structuring of the English prepositions between, among, and amid, and their Spanish equivalent entre: A cognitive linguistic approach to spatial, non-spatial, and temporal scenes. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 6(1), 103–129. 10.1075/cogls.00032.mor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00032.mor [Google Scholar]
  43. Núñez, R. E., & Sweetser, E.
    (2006) With the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Aymara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time. Cognitive Science, 30, 401–450. 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_62
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_62 [Google Scholar]
  44. Panther, K. U.
    (2006) Metonymy as a usage event. InG. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp.147–186). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Pöppel, E.
    (2004) Lost in time: a historical frame, elementary processing units and the 3-second window. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis (Wars), 64, 295–301.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. (2009) Pre-semantically defined temporal windows for cognitive processing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364, 1887–1896. 10.1098/rstb.2009.0015
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0015 [Google Scholar]
  47. Pütz, M.
    (2007) Cognitive linguistics and applied linguistics. InD. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.1139–1159). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Sinha, C., & Kuteva, T.
    (1995) Distributed spatial semantics. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 18, 167–199. 10.1017/S0332586500000159
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586500000159 [Google Scholar]
  49. Sinha, C.
    (2016) When time is not space: The social and linguistic construction of time intervals and temporal event relations in an Amazonian culture. InB. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), Conceptualizations of time (pp.151–186). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.52.08sin
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.52.08sin [Google Scholar]
  50. Slobin, D. I.
    (1996) From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. InJ. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp.70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
    (2003) The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486517
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486517 [Google Scholar]
  52. Tyler, A.
    (2012) Cognitive linguistics and second language learning. New York/London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203876039
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203876039 [Google Scholar]
  53. Vandeloise, C.
    (1991) Spatial prepositions: A case study from French (trans.Anna R. K. Bosch). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. (1994) Methodology and analyses of the preposition in. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(2), 157–184. 10.1515/cogl.1994.5.2.157
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1994.5.2.157 [Google Scholar]
  55. Zlatev, J.
    (2003) Polysemy or generality? Mu. InH. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & J. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp.447–494). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219074.447
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219074.447 [Google Scholar]
  56. Zwaan, R.
    (2004) The immersed experiencer: toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. InB. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp.35–62). New York, NY: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00066.mor
Loading
Unweaving the embodied nature of English temporal prepositions
Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8, 60 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00066.mor
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00066.mor
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00066.mor
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): conceptual basis; conceptual parameter; metaphor; temporal frame of reference (t-FoR); temporal structure

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error