Cover not available

Article published In: Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 8:1 (2021) ► pp.60–84

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Unweaving the embodied nature of English temporal prepositions

The case of at

ORCiD logo with link | University of Córdoba, Spain
ORCiD logo with link | Southwest University, China
Published online: 8 September 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00066.mor
Abstract
The metaphor time is space ( (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) and the pervasiveness of metaphor and image-schematic structure in human conceptualization (Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reasoning. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) 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, V. (2004). The structure of time: Language, meaning, and temporal cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, (2013). Language and time: A cognitive linguistics approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Galton, A. (2011). Time flies but space doesn’t: limits to the spatialization of time. Journal of Pragmatics, 431, 695–703. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) 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, D. (2005). The spatial and temporal meanings of English prepositions can be independently impaired. Neuropsychologia, 43(5), 797–806. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar 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.
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
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barcelona, A. (Ed.). (2000). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Metonymy. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak, D. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (Vol. 391) (pp. 143–167). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergen, B. K. (2012). Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books (AZ).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Casasanto, D., & Boroditsky, L. (2008). Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106(2), 579–593. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corballis, M. C. (2011). The recursive mind: The origins of human language, thought, and civilization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). How words mean: Lexical concepts, cognitive models, and meaning construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010b). On the nature of lexical concepts. Belgrade Journal of English Linguistics and Literature Studies (BELLS), 21, 11–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Language and time: A cognitive linguistics approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015a). A unified account of polysemy within LCCM Theory. Lingua, . 2014.12.002Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1940). Nuer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Galton, A. (2011). Time flies but space doesn’t: limits to the spatialization of time. Journal of Pragmatics, 431, 695–703. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and spatial cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holme, R. (2009). Cognitive linguistics and language teaching. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reasoning. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kemmerer, D. (2005). The spatial and temporal meanings of English prepositions can be independently impaired. Neuropsychologia, 43(5), 797–806. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol I): Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. II): Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). Grammar and conceptualization [Cognitive Linguistics Research 14]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in linguistic diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moore, K. E. (2006). Space-to-time mappings and temporal concepts. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2),199–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Pre-semantically defined temporal windows for cognitive processing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 3641, 1887–1896. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinha, C., & Kuteva, T. (1995). Distributed spatial semantics. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 181, 167–199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning. New York/London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vandeloise, C. (1991). Spatial prepositions: A case study from French (trans. Anna R. K. Bosch). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994). Methodology and analyses of the preposition in. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(2), 157–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Kalyuga, Marika & Sofya Yunusova
2025. Contrasting the semantics of prepositions through a cognitive linguistic approach. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 23:2 ► pp. 440 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue