Article published in:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 1:2 (2014) ► pp. 271–288

Temporal prepositions explained

Cross-linguistic analysis of English and Swedish unit of time landmarks

| Department of Language Studies, Umeå University (Sweden)

To what extent can factors such as the size of a unit of time landmark and zoomed in effects explain the patterns of temporal prepositions in English (Lindstromberg, 1998/2010)? How important are these factors cross-linguistically? This paper is a corpus linguistic analysis of unit of time landmarks in English in and on instances, and in their Swedish equivalents, i and på instances. My aims are to investigate how temporal in and on relationships are construed in terms of spatial ones and to identify shared and differing patterns between these two closely related languages. Shared patterns may provide clues in regard to which factors are salient when time is construed in terms of space. Differing patterns highlight the fact that a given way of construing time in terms of space is not the only alternative. Systematicity at this level of abstraction is potentially useful for the second language (L2) learner.

Keywords: cross-linguistic, prepositions, English, Swedish, time, space
Published online: 03 April 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.1.2.05fal
References
Bąçzkowska, A
(2011) Space, time and language: A cognitive analysis of English prepositions. Bydgoszcz: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Kazimierza Wielkiego.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L., & Ramscar, M
(2002) The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychological Science, 13(2), 185–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brugman, C
(1981) Story of over. MA thesis. University of California, Berkeley.
Casasanto, D., & Boroditsky, L
(2008) Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106(2), 579–593. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coventry, K.R
(2001) Object-specific function, geometry, and the comprehension of in and on. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 13(4), 509–528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coventry, K.R., & Prat-Sala, M
(2001) Object-specific function, geometry, and the comprehension of in and on. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 13(4), 509–528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dewell, R.B
(2007) Moving around: The role of the conceptualizer in semantic interpretation. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(3), 383–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V
(2004) The structure of time: Language, meaning, and temporal cognition. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Field, J
(2008) Bricks or mortar: Which parts of the input does a second language listener rely on?’ TESOL Quarterly, 42(3), 411–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filipović, L., & Jaszczolt, K.M
(2012) Space and time in languages and cultures: Linguistic diversity [Human Cognitive Processing Series, 36]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Space and time in languages and cultures: Language, culture, and cognition [Human Cognitive Processing Series, 37.]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herskovits, A
(1986/2009) Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. London/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johansson Falck, M
(2012) Metaphor variation across L1 and L2 speakers of English: Do differences at the level of linguistic metaphor matter? In F.J. MacArthur, L., Oncins-Martinez, A.M. Piquer-Piriz & M. Sánchez-Garcia (Eds.), Metaphor in Use: Context, culture, and communication (pp. 109–134). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Other ways of construing space: In and on from a cross-linguistic perspective. Unpublished manuscript.
What trajectors reveal about time metaphors: Corpus analysis of English and Swedish. Manuscript under review.
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
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R
(2002) Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar (2nd ed.). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Liamkina, O.A
(2008) Making dative a case for semantic analysis: Differences in use between native and non-native speakers of German. In A. Tyler, Y. Kim & M. Takada (Eds.), Language in the context of use: Discourse and cognitive approaches to language. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, S
(1998/2010) English prepositions explained. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesset, T
(2011) Space-time asymmetries in Russian prepositions: Preliminary analysis. Poljarnyj Vestnik, 141, 45–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Núñez, R.E., & Sweetser, E
(2006) With the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Ayamara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial constructs of time. Cognitive Science, 301, 401–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Odlin, T
(2008) Conceptual transfer and meaning extensions. In P. Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Özçalişkan, Ş
(2005) Metaphor meets typology: Ways of moving metaphorically in English and Turkish. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(1), 207–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Özçalişkan, Ş., & Slobin, D.I
(2003) Codability effects on the expression of manner of motion in Turkish and English. In A.S. Özsoy, D. Akar, M. Nakipoğlu-Demiralp, E. Erguvanlı-Taylan & A. Aksu-Koç (Eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp. 259–270). Istanbul, Turkey: Boğaziçi University Press.Google Scholar
Radden, G
(2003) The metaphor TIME AS SPACE across languages’. In N. Baumgarten, C. Böttger, M. Motz & J. Probst (Eds.), Übersetzen, Interkulturelle Kommunikation, Spracherwerb und Sprachvermittlung - das Leben mit Mehreren Sprachen. Festschrift für Juliane House zum 60. Geburtstag. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht [Online], 8(2/3): 226–239.Google Scholar
Talmy, L
(2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
Tyler, A
(2012) Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V
(2007) The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, C
(1990) Representation, prototypes and centrality. In S. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
(1994) Methodology and analyses of the preposition in . Cognitive Linguistics, 5(2), 157–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Egan, Thomas & Hildegunn Dirdal
2017. Chapter 1. Lexis in contrast today. In Cross-linguistic Correspondences [Studies in Language Companion Series, 191], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Johansson Falck, Marlene
2017. Chapter 2. Embodied motivations for abstract in and on constructions. In Constructing Families of Constructions [Human Cognitive Processing, 58], ► pp. 53 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 january 2023. 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.