Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 8:1 (2021) ► pp.60–84

Unweaving the embodied nature of English temporal prepositions

The case of at

ORCID logo | University of Córdoba, Spain
ORCID logo | Southwest University, China
The metaphor time is space (Lakoff & Johnson 1999) and the pervasiveness of metaphor and image-schematic structure in human conceptualization (Johnson 1987; Hampe 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 at the corner vs. at 2:30, there seems to be much more temporal cognition than previously thought. It turns out that time exhibits its own structure (following Evans 2004, 2013; Galton 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 at that makes use of an extrinsic temporal reference to activate its temporal semantics. To analyze the different temporal realizations that at may have, the paper aims to identify the topological structure that underlies the conceptual basis of this preposition. This allows us to appreciate how the spatio-conceptual structure of at 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.
Keywords: temporal frame of reference (t-FoR), temporal structure, conceptual parameter, metaphor, conceptual basis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1Space versus time in cognitive linguistics
    • 2.2Theories and constructs
      • 2.2.1Methodology
  • 3.Analysis
    • 3.1Temporal lexical concepts for at
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 September 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00066.mor
References (56)
References
Allwood, J. (2003). Meaning potentials and context: Some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & J. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 29–66). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, A. (Ed.). (2000). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2011). Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In R. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Metonymy. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak, D. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (Vol. 391) (pp. 143–167). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W., Santos, A., Simmons, W. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2008). Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In M. de Vega, A. Glenberg & A. Graesser (Eds.), Symbols, embodiment, and meaning (pp. 245–283). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B. K. (2012). Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books (AZ).Google Scholar
Casasanto, D., & Boroditsky, L. (2008). Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106(2), 579–593. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1973). Space, time, semantics, and the child. In T. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and acquisition of language (pp. 27–63). New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corballis, M. C. (2011). The recursive mind: The origins of human language, thought, and civilization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, V. (2004). The structure of time: Language, meaning, and temporal cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). How words mean: Lexical concepts, cognitive models, and meaning construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010a). From the spatial to the non-spatial: The “state” lexical concepts of in, on and at. In V. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition and space: The state of the art and new directions (pp. 215–248). London: Equinox publishing.Google Scholar
(2010b). On the nature of lexical concepts. Belgrade Journal of English Linguistics and Literature Studies (BELLS), 21, 11–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Language and time: A cognitive linguistics approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015a). A unified account of polysemy within LCCM Theory. Lingua, DOI logo. 2014.12.002Google Scholar
(2015b). What’s in a concept? In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), The conceptual mind: New directions in the study of concepts (pp. 251–290). Cambridge/Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1940). Nuer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2008). Rethinking metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 53–66). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 221, 455–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galton, A. (2011). Time flies but space doesn’t: limits to the spatialization of time. Journal of Pragmatics, 431, 695–703. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hampe, B. (2005). Image schemas in cognitive linguistics: Introduction. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 1–12). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and spatial cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1988). Spatial expressions and the plasticity of meaning. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 271–298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holme, R. (2009). Cognitive linguistics and language teaching. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reasoning. Chicago: Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemmerer, D. (2005). The spatial and temporal meanings of English prepositions can be independently impaired. Neuropsychologia, 43(5), 797–806. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol I): Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. II): Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2000). Grammar and conceptualization [Cognitive Linguistics Research 14]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Metonymic grammar. In K. U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 45–74). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in linguistic diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moore, K. E. (2006). Space-to-time mappings and temporal concepts. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2),199–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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]. In M. 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
(to appear). Semantic parameters, cognitive models, and mental units. To appear in Cognitive Semantics.
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, 301, 401–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K. U. (2006). Metonymy as a usage event. In G. 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
Pöppel, E. (2004). Lost in time: a historical frame, elementary processing units and the 3-second window. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis (Wars), 641, 295–301.Google Scholar
(2009). Pre-semantically defined temporal windows for cognitive processing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 3641, 1887–1896. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pütz, M. (2007). Cognitive linguistics and applied linguistics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 1139–1159). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sinha, C., & Kuteva, T. (1995). Distributed spatial semantics. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 181, 167–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinha, C. et al. (2016). When time is not space: The social and linguistic construction of time intervals and temporal event relations in an Amazonian culture. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), Conceptualizations of time (pp. 151–186). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning. New York/London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vandeloise, C. (1991). Spatial prepositions: A case study from French (trans. Anna R. K. Bosch). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
(1994). Methodology and analyses of the preposition in . Cognitive Linguistics, 5(2), 157–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J. (2003). Polysemy or generality? Mu. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & J. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 447–494). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. (2004). The immersed experiencer: toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 35–62). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Kalyuga, Marika & Sofya Yunusova
2024. Contrasting the semantics of prepositions through a cognitive linguistic approach. Review of Cognitive Linguistics DOI logo
Morras, Javier
2022. Semantic Parameters, Cognitive Models, and Mental Units. Cognitive Semantics 8:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.