The Relationship Between Space and Time in Language - Essay Example

? Space, time, and the use of language 0 Introduction The relationship between two conceptual domains of space and time is usually conducted in terms of language and cognition and the reflection of these two domains in these two spaces. Time is often represented in the studies as the phenomenon secondary in relation to space. With regard to the fact that our current investigation is anchored on the theory suggested by Jean-Marie Guyau (1988) it follows: only time representations reflect time dependency on space; time can be measured by space; “events” can measure time; the past is “behind us” and the future is “in front of us” (cited by Macey, 1994). We suggest that there is no direct interdependency between these terms, because they are defined by exact contextual environments and are clearly differentiated from one another in the natural environments. On the basis of modern studies and studies on temporal and spatial representations of previous years, we have examined linguistic basis to prove the fact of a co-existence of spatial and temporal relationships. Moreover, considerations from cognitive science, psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics are also relevant to further differentiation between spatial and temporal relationships. The spatial basis of temporal terms has been often supported by the majority of scientists and researchers (Cantor & Thomas, 2007; Clark, 1994; Levinson, 2003). This study opposes to the generally accepted methodological paradigm and it is claimed that there spatial/temporal terms chosen above are independent terms with complete semantics. Moreover, there is no need to investigate a temporal or spatial basis of these terms, because initially spatial domain is perceived as concrete and temporal domain is known as the abstract one. Therefore, we can suppose that “terms denoting space are concrete objects and the terms denoting time are abstract events” (Tenbrink, 2006). With regard to the fact that it is easier to deal with concrete entities than with abstract, concrete entities can be determinant domains for clarifying abstract experience. Moreover, time experience is better perceived “in terms of experience gained in terms of accessible domain of space” (Tenbrink, 2006). Thus, it is relevant to investigate a possibility to identify definite limits between time and spatial relationships or it is relevant to talk about the existence and prevalence of spatiotemporal relationship. 2.0 Background Basing on the idea that human perception of time is related to space conceptualization is an unquestionable claim. It has been always underlined that time representation depends on space. In accordance with findings of psychological studies, it has been always claimed that it is natural of children to mix up spatial and temporal relationship (Clark, 1994). Clark (1994) was the first who claimed that “temporal language is based on spatial language and that English relational temporal prepositions are based on front and back” (Clark, 1994). Clark talked about “moving time” metaphor and “moving ego” metaphor and underlined that, for example, before is derived from in front of and after is derived from in back of, i.e. he correlates these two terms with “moving time” metaphor (Clark, 1994). Nevertheless, it is worth remembering that there is no one basic conceptual metaphor defining further metaphorical representations of a certain domain. A consistent basis of a metaphor has been often underlined by Lakoff and Johnson (1999). Therefore, it is necessary to underline that representations of concepts in metaphorical language is also possible outside this language, or in other words is possible in an independent manner. Still, there is a need to talk about the following peculiarities of metaphorical representations: metaphors are compatible with different domains though they do not have a scope covering different aspects of one domain and thus do not embrace the whole target concept. From another perspective, it is suggested by Habel & Eschenbach (1997) that space should not be considered as “a concrete source domain from which the more abstract concepts of time are consistently derived. Instead, space and time share a range of representational structures, which are systematically reflected in language” (Habel & Eschenbach,1997). Thus, it is relevant to talk about coexistence of spatial and temporal relationship rather than their interdependencies and interrelatedness. A chosen metaphorical approach to investigation of spatial and temporal relationship is justified though it prevents from covering all the aspects of this relationship. Thus, it is relevant to discuss the relationship between time and space taking into account that there are numerous commonalities and differences in representations of time and space concepts. In accordance with Tenbrink (2006) the following example is relevant for description of time-spatial relationship: e.g. buttering the toast- in this example it is impossible to reflect the objects in verbal form. Thus, in spatial relationship it is impossible to relate clauses to each other and in verbal expression of events or objects temporal relational expressions may occur. It is relevant to talk about spatial and temporal markers and their conjunctional nature in the process of comparing between time and space domains (Tenbrink, 2006). Moreover, it is relevant to consider time in terms of space by means of the supposition that “time is space metaphor”. In accordance with the scientists exploring conceptual basis of metaphor, such as George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (1999), it is clearly seen that “speakers use concepts referring to concrete, physical experiences to understand (and express) concepts referring to more abstract conceptual domains” (Lakoff and Johnson, 74). 3.0 Methodology The notion of time is used as a term covering a number of more concrete conceptual metaphors and it is thus easier to understand time as a tangible spatial phenomenon. As it is suggested by the researcher Bert Capelle (2006), it is relevant to be focused on more specific time metaphors, such as the following: Times are objects moving towards you; Times are locations in a landscape over which you move; Events are moving objects; Change is motion, Causes are forces (Capelle, 2006). With this regard, it should be noted that time or events are perceived as stationary or moving objects and thus an interlocutor’s attitude to time may be different. Usually, a temporal content of expressions is expressed via spatial relationships. For example, The end of the working day is getting closer and This day has slipped away swiftly represent conceptual metaphor Times are moving objects. Another metaphor times are locations in a landscape can be illustrated in the following way: I am approaching the day of my birthday and We didn’t make it to the Easter (At the same time, when an interlocutor is discussing short/long duration of time or says within the next few weeks, it is also relevant to be assigned to Times are locations metaphor). In order to illustrate the metaphor Events are moving objects, such kind of sentences may be given: The interesting facts are passing by me or Her singing was dragging on and on. Therefore, a conceptual metaphor of time suggested by Bert Capelle (2006) is relevant to other languages as well, and not only to English language. This fact can be explained in the following terms: human minds can perceive a category of time only via concrete experiences from their lives. Therefore, there is no exact correlation with space and time, but there is for sure a direct connection between existence of concrete physical objects explaining a category of time to the individuals or facilitating their communication about time. 4.0 Analysis Still, in order to prove a possibility of independent existence of temporal and spatial relationships, it is necessary to see the way these relationships are reflected in the minds of speakers. It is possible to see how these categories are reflected in human minds by means of the preposition in. This preposition is often used in a spatial context (e.g. in the bag) and in a temporal context (e.g. in a week). Thus, speakers, for example may memorize and apply a spatial meaning of the preposition in and at the same time develop their understanding and the principles of further application of the preposition in in a time context. The like supposition is also supported by Bert Capelle (2006) when the scientist talks about mental representation of the Times-are-locations metaphor. In case a speaker memorizes and further applies temporal sense of in, then it would not be derived from the spatial time of in. Actually, the speakers do not have to draw a metaphoric parallel between spatial and temporal use of these conceptual terms of time and space. Moreover, Croft (1998) supports this idea and claims that: “Speakers do not necessarily make the relevant generalizations, even if clever linguists can. Cognitive linguists, like other theoretical linguists, must be aware of this fallacy” (Croft 1998, p. 168). On the example of spatial or temporal application of the preposition in, we can see that this preposition may be used in either one or two contexts (spatial or temporal). Nevertheless, we should memorize that it depends on a model chosen by the speaker. On the one hand, it is a “single-entry derivation model” and on the other hand, it is a “homonymy model” (Moore, 2006). In case the former model is chosen, the preposition in reflects a spatial sense. In case the latter model is chosen, the preposition can be applied in spatial and temporal contexts separately. In the modern context, the second model, or homonymy model, is relevant. This fact can be explained in the following terms: though historically temporal and spatial relationships were considered as interrelated, currently psychological peculiarities of modern speakers enable them to differentiate between spatial and temporal relationships. In order to prove this supposition, it is necessary to correlate this claim with psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic evidence. In the psycholinguistic research conducted by Landau and Jackendoff (1993), the temporal usage of prepositions was studied. Such kind of prepositions as in the daytime, in a week etc was studied. This research has not proven that there is a direct connection between time and space. Spatial and temporal relationships were not clearly differentiated by the English speakers. In the neurolinguistic research conducted by Kemmerer (2005), it was claimed that: “although the spatial and temporal meanings of prepositions are historically linked by virtue of the TIME IS SPACE metaphor, they can be (and may normally be) represented and processed independently of each other in the brains of modern adults” (cited by Capelle, 2005). Therefore, our initial supposition that temporal and spatial relationships may be represented independently is proven in neurolinguistic and psycholinguistic paradigm. The distinction between spatial and temporal relationships can be also proven by the linguistic evidence. Capelle (2005) claims there are a need to differentiate between directional and aspectual particles: We went into the classroom – there is a directional preposition and She drank up her wine – there is an aspectual particle. This differentiation between particles is supported by Bolinger (1971), who talked about the following: “There is a deep-seated relationship between notions of action, state, progression, inception, completion, and the like, on the one hand and notions of direction and position on the other—a kind of geometry of semantics” (Bolinger 1971, p.110). At this point it is even possible to ask the question about whether spatial and temporal relationships distinguish between different natures of prepositions. Thus, is the preposition on is used in a temporal context has the one sense, and when it is used in the spatial context it has another sense. Furthermore, it is relevant to provide the following linguistic evidence that the single-entry metaphor-based model is irrelevant nowadays. In the experiment conducted by Moore (2006) so-called congruity test was made. During this experiment the scientists had to measure a degree of an abstract concept understanding in terms of a more concrete concept. There are both linguistic and psycholionguistic findings in the study by Jackendoff and Aaron (cited by Moore, 2006). They used as an example a template of the sentence in order to find out an overlapping between two different concepts (e.g. relationships and moving objects). For example, our friendship has gone off the track. And initially no motivated metaphor is applicable for this sentence. Though in the second part of the sentence there is a certain overlapping that makes sense of the whole sentence. A friendship as a relationship cannot be considered as a moving object. Still, for the second part of the sentence a conceptual metaphor a relationship is a moving object may be applied. Concerning such kind of conceptual metaphor application, Goddard (2004) implies a name of “active metaphors”. He proves that there is a “metalinguistic tags” between such kinds of moving metaphors. In other words, there are unseen rules of application for moving metaphors, such as the following: “They are, so to speak, at a crossroads in their relationship but not He was talking, so to speak, on” (Goddard, 2004). Moreover, the second linguistic argument about a temporal context of a particle is the following. One may suggest using only one lexical name for on, used in spatial and temporal contexts. On the example of the preposition on, it is clearly seen that in the temporal context on can never coexist with a direct object (e.g. read (the book) on) and spatial on can be used ; scrub (*the floors) on; cry (*bitter tears) on, …), while spatial on can (e.g. push the car on). Thus, there is a certain argument and structural difference. It may be supposed that there is an initial necessity to preserve temporal and spatial relationships. This phenomenon is further explained by Capelle (2006) as the following: “The idiosyncractic grammatical difference between on used for spatial continuation and on used for temporal continuation excludes the possibility that spatial on is basic and that aspectual on is merely an expected metaphorical extension that need not be stored in the mind” (Capelle, 2006). Therefore, temporal contextual meanings of prepositions shown above are extended from spatial meanings. English speakers supposedly have ability to store these meanings separately from spatial meanings. That is why we can currently claim for sure that there is no unarguable correlation between space and time as it has always been before. Nevertheless, it is necessary to take into account other ways of representing spatial and temporal relationships in linguistic and cognitive science paradigm. 5.0 Discussion 5.1 Temporal and Spatial Language Time features are expressed in language. Time relationship is usually perceived in the following terms: “they reflect speakers’ underlying conceptions of the relations between events, which are generally not purely temporal but are also perceived as connected in some more or less direct way” (Capelle, 2005). In English language time relationship is usually expressed in terms of anteriority or posteriority. Nevertheless, time relationship expressed in English is not only restricted by these terms. There is also association of sequentiality or proximality (Tyler and Evans, 2001). Semantics in time contexts is limited by time frame. For example, two adjacent clauses are supposed to describe causally related events even in case explicit causal markers are absent (Tyler and Evans, 2001). Partially, it is possible to describe this phenomenon in terms of rrelationship between two abstract concepts: of time and causality. The presence of causality is often discussed in relation to the usage of “after”: After she came home, she completed her homework. Thus, the event of coming home led to completing homework. In case of “before” it is rather hard to draw causal relationship between two events. Causal and quasi-causal relationships are further discussed in the following contexts: with regard to presuppostional effects; non-veridical interpretations together with before (Capelle, 2005). Nevertheless, from our perspective, it is relevant to consider spatial and temporal relationship in terms of pragmatic discourse. It has been further claimed that English speakers do not use temporal relationship to describe unrelated events. This fact can be explained in the following way: the English language provides speakers with different options to express temporal relations (such as tense, temporal adverbials, or clause order) (Zakay and Block, 1997). In case of temporal dimensional terms usage, speaker may have an intention to transfer more information than simply temporal information. Still, there are different conceptual relationships that can be reflected by means of temporal dimensional term. At this point it is relevant to talk about causal relationship. From the perspective of cognitive linguistics, the relationship between time and causality can be explained in the following way: there is a natural close relationship between causal and temporal relations. 5.2 Spatial language In order to determine a spatial relation between two objects, it is relevant to refer to locative dimensional terms. Thus, one object is “relatum”, and the other is placed within a certain space surrounding a focal axis with a certain relation to the relatum, on the basis of the conceptualization of a reference system (Cantor and Thomas, 2007). The most interesting area for discussion is area that concerns reference system and perspectives. A spatial term can be often interpreted in many different ways and it is a well-known fact. In accordance with Levinson (2003) there are many confusing terms, such as “deictic, extrinsic, and intrinsic” (Levinson, 2003). It is common to mix up deixis with perspective, because there is a common basis for both of them, i.e. actual situation. Levinson’s claim should be considered as a central one for further discussion. The study by this scientist is focused on the following claim: there is a possible interrelation between objects (limited by internal or external relationship). In terms of external relationship one object is located inside of another one. Thus, Levinson determines three different systems of referencing: intrinsic, relative, and absolute (Levinson, 2003). We would focus our attention on the location of one object, the location of another object (relatum) and the perspective used. The choice of reference system by speakers is rather controversial issue. Cantor and Thomas (2007) claim: the speakers prefer the listener's point of view in case they have reasons. The listener’s perspective is often used in order to facilitate the process of cognition for the interlocutor. It is necessary to underline that objects in motion are often described from the perspective of moving object or in other words as if a moving object was viewed from inside “I watched at the stone from behind that was rolling down the hill” (Tenbrink, 2005). Further on, a moving object can be the origin of a relative reference system. The direction of motion is on the first place in this case: “If the stone continues rolling down the hill, it will fall into the river” (Tenbrink, 2005) . It is relevant to mention about a “global perspective” or an observer’s viewpoint In this case, the observed region is divided in sections described by spatial terms (front, back, left, right) (Tenbrink, 2005). There are also other approaches in the field of spatial relationship, such as spatial templates approach (e.g., Carlson-Radvansky and Logan 1997), functional features of objects (Coventry & Garrod 2004), and “interaction-related as well as discourse task-related aspects of application” (Coventry & Garrod 2004). Generally speaking, in the linguistic paradigm it has been often claimed that either temporal or spatial relationship may exist without reliance on each other. Moreover, English speakers usually differentiate between their spatial or temporal relationships conceptual or linguistic choices in accordance with the presence or absence of other objects. 5.3 Cognitive science about temporal and spatial relationship Time and space though reflected to the certain extent in a specific manner in language (considered above) is also specially represented in human cognition. In cognitive science it has not still clearly defined the way people perceive time or estimate duration. It has been claimed by Zakay and Block (1997) that “people may estimate filled durations as being longer than empty durations, but sometimes the reverse is found. Duration judgments tend to be shorter if a more diffcult task is performed than if an easier task is performed, but again the opposite has also been reported”. Moreover, in accordance with Zakay and Block (1997) time is not perceived through the senses. Time is often perceived as a sensory process. Two following examples illustrate this supposition: A) They moved the truck forward two meters. B) They moved the meeting forward two hours. Thus, a truck is a physical object moving through space and an individual can hear or see its movement from initial to the endpoint. The second sentence does not literally describe motion itself. An abstract nature of events and definite nature of objects make prevent individuals perceive spatial than temporal relationship. The relationship between time and space can be defined by duration. Spatial representations conceptualize time, which is one of the many other domains of knowledge depending on “perceptuo-motor representations built up via experience with the physical world” (Zakay and Block, 1997). In the experiments conducted by Tyler and Evans (2001) it is claimed that temporal and spatial thinking is connected (Casasanto and Boroditsky, 2008). The experiments were based on showing people non-linguistic stimuli and they had to estimate either their duration or spatial displacement. Therefore, it was found out that temporal and spatial mental representations of people can be measured by three main approaches. As it was claimed by John Locke (1689/1995) “expansion and duration do mutually embrace and comprehend each other; every part of space being in every part of duration, and every part of duration in every part of expansion” (cited by Evans 140). Therefore, we can see interdependency between time and space in our minds. There is also a possibility of asymmetric dependence between time and space (Boroditsky, 2000; Lakoff and Johnson, 1999). In order to illustrate spatial and temporal relationship, we have chosen Experiment 5 out of 6 experiments conducted by Tyler and Evans (2001). During this experiment the subjects viewed a dot (10x10 pixels) moving horizontally crossing the midline of the screen. It was necessary for the participants to memorize the starting point of movement and the ending point of the dot’s movement. Therefore, people appeal for the spatial information more than temporal information to make further judgments. The experiment conducted by Cantor and Thomas (1977) was also focused on the fact that spatial information causes a great influence on temporal judgments. In the experiments conducted in the field of metaphor theory a linguistic stimulus was used (Boroditsky, 2000). A psychological reality of mental metaphors is supported in these studies and it is claimed that people have an option to think about abstract domain like time in a metaphoric manner. The abovementioned experiment is not based on linguistic stimuli and still there is an interrelationship between space and time. It is natural of English speakers to describe time in terms of space. These experiments have indicated that there is an asymmetrical cross-dimensional interference between time and space. The effect of distance of time prevails over the effect of time on distance. Thus, in mental representations space affects on time and spatial representations are integral for temporal representations. Time representation in a linear manner makes us representing abstract temporal events that humans cannot perceive directly. Through metaphors mental representations of time and space are reflected in language. In other words, a metaphoric speaking is based on metaphoric thinking. There is “direct evidence that spatial cognition supports development of abstract concepts” (Capelle, 2005). Spatial representations are crucial for abstract thinking. It has been claimed for centuries that abstract thinking was developed on the basis of linguistic and psycholinguistic data (Tyler and Evans, 2001). The performance of psychophysical experiments underlines the fact that nonlinguistic representations of either concrete of abstract domains predict the fact that humans think in mental metaphors. Spatial words are used by people for abstract representations. Therefore, there is a strong interaction between language and nonlinguistic representations. In accordance with the experiments, it is clear that “language not only reflects the structure of underlying mental representations, it can also shape those representations in ways that influence how people perform even low-level, nonlinguistic, perceptuo-motor tasks” (Tyler and Evans, 2001). In spite of the earlier studies the prevalence of language that influences on formation of nonlinguistic representations is underlined by Tyler and Evans (2001). An integrative approach to consideration about spatial and temporal relationship focused on prevalence of spatial representations was also conducted by Boroditsky (2010). It has been found that spatial relationships should be considered as default relationship in human mental representations of concrete objects. The author also claims that previously it was relevant to correlate temporal and spatial relationship. Moreover, it is claimed that there is integration between temporal and spatial relationships. Macey (2006) has also underlined that spatial maps are not always relevant to discuss mental representations. From another perspective it has been presented that space and time are not abstractions, but are necessary parameters for human brains (Macey, 1994). Therefore, we have shown a scientific tendency to show that language is the first and then comes cognitive science. In other words: linguistic representations of time and space influenced on cognitive formation and reflection of these representations. We would rather argue that cognitive development comes first and then follows language. This claim was also suggested by Casasanto, Fotakopoulou, and Boroditsky (2010) when they conducted their experiments with the help of children who were asked to differentiate between temporal or spatial relationship between moving stimuli. In this case children discarded irrelevant spatial information and were more focused on temporal information. Thus, children have other conceptions about duration unlike adults. Therefore, cognitive mechanisms influencing on formation of spatial and mental representations may differ or coincide with linguistic mechanisms of these representations. 5.4 Temporal and Spatial Terms: a comparative approach In accordance with our main claim that spatial relationship and temporal relationship can exist separately, there is still the main linguistic argument that their relationship in interrelationship is also possible and can be met very often. Temporal terms are applied when a speaker wants to define an interrelationship between events and their influence on the interlocutor: “Thus, temporal dimensional terms are employed whenever two events need to be juxtaposed that are conceptually interrelated in some way, which is often causal in some sense” (Tenbrink, 2005). It is possible to underline a definite temporal relationship between some events when this type of relationship is focused on duration description between the events, for example. From another perspective, temporal relationships when reflected by means of indirect linguistic means (tense, clause etc), then the interrelationship between events is expressed as a secondary conceptualization. Nevertheless, with respect to temporal relationship between events, explicit expression of time conceptualization is appropriate. Moreover, when English speaker wants to show a stronger relationship between events, then temporal relationships would be expressed in a broader context and in a wider discourse. When we talk about spatial relationships, we can see that the matter is about a threefold relationship: the discourse task, the functional relationship and an underlying reference system. For example, in a wider context an interlocutor may choose a specific reference system or syntactic form of expression. Therefore, in English language spatial relationship are focused not only on the object identification, but also on the description of spatial relationships. With this regard, it is possible to claim that areas of applicability of spatial relationship are often influenced by functional relationships between spatial objects. 6.0 Conclusion With this respect, as we have already seen, temporal and spatial relationships may be differentiated on the ontological basis that limits objects and events. In the linguistic perspective: “objects are directly perceivable and therefore in some cases do not need to be specified linguistically, while events are more abstract and must therefore be retrievable from or delimited by the discourse itself” (Capelle, 2005). But in both cases, “the interlocutors do not necessarily differentiate possible interpretations between spatial and temporal relationships” (Capelle, 2005). Therefore, we can claim that there are many commonalities between spatial and temporal relationships. The application of these relationships in the discourse underline that there is no direct dependency between these relationships and they can exist separately from each other. Moreover, unlike previous studies where it has been often underlined that there are no time relationships without spatial relaspacetionships, it is clearly seen in this study that temporal relationships have different dimensional terms in comparison with spatial relationships. In such a way, a modern linguistic paradigm should consider temporal and spatial relationships in a broader context and not simply correlate these relationships among each other. REFERENCES Block, R. A., Zakay, D., & Hancock, P. A. (1999). Developmental changes in human duration judgments: A meta-analytic review. Developmental Review 19 (1999): 183-211. Bolinger, D. The Phrasal Verb in English. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971. Boroditsky, L. Metaphoric Structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition 75(1) (2000): pp. 1–28. Cantor, N. E., & Thomas, E. A. Control of attention in the processing of temporal and spatial information in complex visual patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 3 (2007): 243–250. Cappelle, Bert. Particle Patterns in English. A Comprehensive Coverage. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. K.U.Leuven, 2005. Carlson-Radvansky, L.A. and G.D. Logan. “The Influence of Reference Frame Selection on Spatial Template Construction”. Journal of Memory and Language 37 (1997): pp. 411-437. Clark, H. H. “Space, time, semantics, and the child”. In Moore, Timothy E. (ed.). Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press, 1994. Coventry, K. R. and Garrod, S. C. Saying, seeing and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions. Psychology Press, 2004. Goddard, Cliff. “The ethnopragmatics and semantics of “active metaphors”. Journal of Pragmatics 36(7) (2004): 1211–1230. Habel, C. and C. Eschenbach. “Abstract Structures in Spatial Cognition. In C. Freksa, M. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books, 1999. Landau, Barbara and Ray Jackendoff “What” and “where” in spatial language and spatial cognition”. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 16 (1993): 217-238. Levinson, Stephen. Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP, 2003 Macey, S. L. Encyclopedia of time. New York: Garland, 1994. Moore, Kevin (2006). Space-to-time mappings and temporal concepts. Cognitive Linguistics 17-2 (2006): pp. 199-244. Talmy, Leonard. “The fundamental system of spatial schemas in language. In B. Hampe (ed.) From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1995. Tenbrink, Thora. Space, time, and the use of language: An investigation of relationship (cognitive linguistics research). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2007. Tyler, A. and V. Evans. Rethinking Prepositional Polysemy Networks: The case of Over. Language, 2001. Read More