In:The Spatial Language of Time: Metaphor, metonymy, and frames of reference
Kevin Ezra Moore
[Human Cognitive Processing 42] 2014
► pp. vii–xiv
Get fulltext
This article is available free of charge.
Published online: 16 May 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.42.toc
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.42.toc
Table of contents
List of diagramsxv
List of tablesxvii
Abbreviations and special symbols
Transcription conventionsxxi
Acknowledgments
Part I. Temporal metaphor and ego’s perspective
Introduction: Talking about time as if it were space
The deictic nature of Moving Ego and Ego-centered
Moving Time expressions
The experiential bases (grounding, motivation) of Moving Ego and Ego-centered Moving Time
From earlier to later
Frame of reference and alternate construals of ego-centered time
Part II. Perspectival neutrality
A field-based frame of reference
The psychological reality of sequence is relative position on a path
Illustrating the field-based/ego-perspective contrast: The case
of sequence is relative position in a stack
Space-to-time metonymy
Part III. The temporal semantics of in-front and behind
The contrasting front/behind schemas of sequence is relative
position on a path and Moving Ego
The crosslinguistic pairing of in-front and behind
with ‘earlier’ and ‘later’
The alignment of ego with a field-based frame of reference
When back is not the opposite of front: A temporal relative frame
of reference in Wolof
The Ego-opposed temporal metaphor and contexts of shared perspective
Modes of construal of front and behind
In search of primary metaphors of time
Part IV. Location without translational motion
Expressions of static temporal “location”
Beyond metaphor and metonymy: Mental spaces
and conceptual integration
Other-centered Moving Time and Wolof fekk ‘become co-located with’
Times as bounded regions
Part V. Fundamentally different temporal concepts
Having and wasting Wolof counterparts of time
Conclusions
References
Name index
Subject index
