26.727, Review: Cognitive Science; Semantics; Typology: Evans (2013)

Wed Feb 4 16:55:18 UTC 2015

LINGUIST List: Vol-26-727. Wed Feb 04 2015. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 26.727, Review: Cognitive Science; Semantics; Typology: Evans (2013)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Anthony Aristar, Helen Aristar-Dry, Sara Couture)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Editor for this issue: Sara  Couture <sara at linguistlist.org>
================================================================

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 11:54:39
From: Sonja Zeman [SZeman at gmx.de]
Subject: Language and Time

Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=33164945

Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/24/24-4851.html

AUTHOR: Vyvyan  Evans
TITLE: Language and Time
SUBTITLE: A Cognitive Linguistics Approach
PUBLISHER: Cambridge University Press
YEAR: 2013

REVIEWER: Sonja Zeman, University of Munich

Review's Editors: Malgorzata Cavar and Sara Couture

SUMMARY 

“[T]his book is doubtless not for the faint-hearted [...]”. These are the
author's own words given in his preface to precede the volume “Language and
Time. A Cognitive Linguistics Approach.” The statement is indeed true – not
only with regard to the complexity of the issues addressed, namely the
metaphysics of time and its perceptual as well as linguistic
conceptualization, but also due to the fact that it combines three different
goals, each of which constitutes an ambitious and multifaceted issue by
itself:
(1) The volume aims at offering a taxonomy of temporal reference frames based
on a comparison of the domains of space and time.
(2) By taking temporal reference as a testing field for a general theory of
access semantics, it further aims at serving as an empirical application of
Evans' Lexical Concepts and Cognitive Models Theory (LCCM Theory, Evans 2009).
(3) Moreover, a revision of the role of Conceptual Metaphor as a driving force
for meaning construction is intended to serve as a basis for investigating the
relationship between the linguistic and conceptual level, and hence for
contributing to the development of a general theory of meaning. 

Committed to these different aims, the book is divided into three main parts:
An orientation section lays the theoretical groundwork with respect to the
concept of Frames of Reference (FoR) and Evans' Theory of Lexical Concepts and
Cognitive Models (LCCM Theory). The second part is devoted to a comparison
between space and time which leads to a taxonomy of temporal FoRs. The final
part is concerned with the differentiation between literal and figurative
meaning and its implications for a general theory of meaning construction. 

Part I: Orientation 

The orientation section offers an overview of the main questions of the volume
and its theoretical background. The starting point of Chapter 1 is the common
premise that time is conceptualized in terms of space. Under this premise, it
seems natural to suggest that time is conceptualized by Frames of Reference
(FoR) as have been made evident for the spatial domain by Levinson 2003. One
of Evans' central aims therefore is to establish a taxonomy of temporal FoRs
(t-FoRs) and to investigate their specific properties in relation to spatial
FoRs (s-FoRs). 

The theoretical and methodological background for identifying t-FoRs is
provided by Evans' Theory of Lexical Concepts and Cognitive Models (LCCM
theory) as presented in Chapter 2. LCCM theory presupposes a principled
separation between a conceptual structure (i.e. non-linguistic representation
that derives from sensory-motor, proprioceptive and subjective experience and
is structured by what Evans calls “cognitive models”) and a semantic,
language-specific structure, whereby the semantic structure is considered to
provide access to non-linguistic, encyclopaedic knowledge (21). According to
this theory, t-FoRs can be described as lexical concepts, i.e. sentence-level
“units of mental knowledge that encode language-specific knowledge of semantic
nature” (45), and can be identified by their collocation patterns in language
use. 

Part II: Temporal Frames of Reference 

Part II is the core of the volume and offers a taxonomy of t-FoRs, based on a
comparison between the nature of spatial and temporal reference. The overall
hypothesis of Chapter 3 is the following: If temporal reference shows the same
patterns like spatial reference, temporal reference should exhibit similar
FoRs as Levinson 2003 has evidenced for the domain of space. On the other
hand, the t-FoRs are additionally supposed to reflect the specific
characteristics of temporal conceptualization. In this respect, the
distinctive feature of time is seen in Galton's 2011 parameter of “transience”
which refers to the “felt experience of (temporal) passage” and is further
specified by the following three different types of temporal representation
(66):
- DURATION - the felt experience of the extension of passage of time as an
ontological entity in its own right, linked to the MATRIX-relation, “in which
time constitutes 'the' event in which all others occur” (70);
- SUCCESSION - the felt experience in terms of an EARLIER-LATER-relation
between two temporal events;
- ANISOTROPICITY - a felt experience of the asymmetric distinction concerning
the FUTURE-PRESENT-PAST-relation.
This three-partite distinction constitutes the basis for Evans' taxonomy of
three different t-FoRs: the deictic, the sequential, and the extrinsic FoR.
Based on an empirical analysis of a range of distinct lexical concepts as
linguistic reflexes of t-FoRs in English, Evans offers a classification
between deictic, sequential, and extrinsic FoRs.

Deictic t-FoRs (ego-centric, experiencer-based, future-past-relation) are
discussed in Chapter 4. The deictic t-FoR is characterized by a coordinate
system with an Origo constituted by the experiencer's awareness of now,
“anchoring the system to the phenomenologically real experience of
anisotropicity – the felt experience that the passage of time exhibits
inherent asymmetry: a felt distinction between future, present and past” (82).
The deictic t-FoR can be seen as derived from the phenomenologically real and
neurologically instantiated experience of the perceptual moment, which “cuts”
time in different sections of future, present, and past, and is manifest in
linguistic manifestations such as “Christmas is approaching”. 

Sequential t-FoRs (allocentric, event-based, earlier-later-relation) are
focused on in Chapter 5. The sequential t-FoR relates to the transience type
SUCCESSION, which “involves the felt experience that time constitutes a
sequence of events, one preceding another” (114) and is based on the
neurological ability to perceive succession in form of an
earlier-later-distinction. The coordinate system is provided by a sequence of
events so that a given target event is fixed in relation to another event
which serves as reference point (115). This relation is allocentric, i.e.
independent from the experiencer's now, cf. Evans' example “Christmas comes
before New Year's Eve” (116). 

Extrinsic t-FoRs (allocentric, field-based, matrix-relation) are addressed in
Chapter 6. Like the sequential t-FoR, the extrinsic t-FoR is also allocentric
by being independent of an observer's experience. The difference with respect
to the sequential t-FoR is that the transience type of time is conceived as
“an extrinsic matrix or absolute temporal reference frame which can be
deployed to fix events in time, extrinsic to the subjective experience of
time” (127). The extrinsic t-FoR relies on external periodicities (e.g.
day/night cycle, solar cycle) and can be based both on event-reckoning (e.g.
calendars) and time-reckoning systems (e.g. clocks) (129).

This taxonomy constitutes the basis for a comparison of space and time
concerning their common and specific features in Chapter 7. In this respect,
the distinction between different reference strategies (allocentric versus
egocentric) is seen as bound to the perceptual level and hence as a general
property of both space and time conceptualization. While time and space are
equally fundamental on a perceptual level, time, by contrast, appears to
require a representational format in terms of space. This asymmetric
relationship between space and time – the fact that time is activated
automatically by space, but not vice versa – leads Evans to the more general
claim that the asymmetry is not based on the neurological level, but on the
level of representation in the conceptual system (149). The representation of
time in terms of space is facilitated, at least in part, by conceptual
metaphor, which builds the link to the third part of the volume. 

Part III: Meaning Construction and Temporal Reference 

Part III is concerned with the relationship between linguistic and cognitive
conceptualization by taking a look at conceptual metaphors as a central
mechanism of figurative language understanding. The starting point of Chapter
8 is a distinction between 'conceptual metaphors' that are based on an
experiential basis, and 'discourse metaphors' which arise within the
linguistic system in order to serve a specific communicative function. These
are, in essence, lexical concepts (176ff.). While Conceptual Metaphor Theory
holds the implicit premise that conceptual metaphors directly motivate
patterns in language usage (as laid out in section 8.1), Evans argues that
there is a level of linguistic knowledge representation that is dissociated
from conceptual metaphors and which actually drives figurative language use
(188).

This claim is the basis for developing an account of figurative language in
LCCM Theory (Chapter 9). Based on an overview of neurolinguistic and
behavioral studies concerning the processing of literal versus figurative
meaning, Evans dismisses a dichotomic distinction between figural and literal
meaning (193) and argues in favor of a conception of figurativity as a graded
phenomenon whereby literality and figurativity constitute idealized end-points
of a continuum (195). In consequence, the understanding of literal and
figurative meaning is seen as based on the same compositional mechanisms,
related to three crucial factors: (i) the degree of figurativity, (ii) the
relative salience corresponding to the degree of entrenchment, and (iii) the
relative complexity corresponding to the access route length (194, 214). 

The theoretical observations of Chapters 8 and 9 constitute the background for
addressing the question of temporal reference. The central thesis for Chapter
10 is that t-FoRs are lexical concepts that “serve as a schematic template for
the integration of other lexical concepts and interpretation via
non-linguistic content” (237), whereby conceptual metaphor is just one
possible factor in the interpretation of t-FoR lexical concepts. 

In his final Chapter 11, Evans tackles the issue of universals and diversity
in the temporal representation of time in language. By drawing to recent work
on the Amondawa language by Sinha et al. (2011), Evans suggests that
space-to-time metaphors such as 'NOW IS HERE' and 'DURATION IS LENGTH' might
be universal, since they involve basic aspects of phenomenological experience
(245). On the other hand, space-to-time Ego-Moving Time metaphors such as
“Christmas is approaching” do not seem to be universal (244), as seen by the
fact that the Amondawa language “may lack a (subset of a class) of
space-to-time motion metaphors” (241). Evans hastens to say that this does,
however, not imply that the Amondawa lack one of the three t-FoRs. Neither
does it have any implications on the conceptual level of time, as LCCM Theory
presumes a principled separation between conceptual and linguistic level. As
lexical concepts are language-specific, LCCM Theory “predicts that speakers of
different languages should have distinct conceptual representations” (232).

EVALUATION  

The overview already indicates that Evans' volume is a multifaceted approach
that will meet the interests of various disciplines such as semantics,
psycholinguistics, metaphor theory, linguistic relativity, metaphysics and
conceptualization of time, anthropology, and philosophy of language. As the
book can be read with profit from different angles with different interests in
mind, the following remarks can be nothing else but some prospects for future
research as seen from the angle of Evans' three main goals. 

Looking at the fact that the classification of s-FoRs is well established by
both theoretical and cross-linguistic empirical studies, it is indeed
“surprising” (10) that rather few studies have been so far concerned with
temporal FoRs. By offering a taxonomy of t-FoRs based on a comparison of the
metaphysics of space and time which is further substantiated by recent
neuroscientific and behavioral studies, Evans' volume is a groundbreaking work
in order to open up this discussion. On the one hand, the classification
constitutes a tertium comparationis for cross-linguistic comparisons of
temporal conceptualization – as becomes evident by Evans' exemplary short
discussions of languages such as Arabic and the languages of the Aymara,
Amondawa and Pormpuraaw communities (124ff. and Chapter 11). In addition,
further cross-linguistic studies will allow for specifying the taxonomy of
t-FoRs and their relationship to s-FoRs, and therefore contribute to the
understanding of space and time conceptualization in general. In both aspects,
the comparison of s- and t-FoRs in different languages will constitute a
promising testing area concerning the basic questions about linguistic
relativity and the relationship between linguistic variance and universals.

By offering a detailed approach of t-FoRs, the volume can also be seen as a
companion to Evans' previous works on time conceptualization in language
(Evans 2004) in providing an application of LCCM Theory. While the crucial
principles of LCCM Theory and its methodological premises become very clear by
examining t-FoRs as lexical concepts, one could furthermore ask about the
interrelationship to grammatical reference frames as e.g. induced by tense
semantics – especially as time due to its transient nature is commonly
believed to be more relevant for the verb paradigm. Evans excludes tense from
his investigation, based on the argument that with tense “the event is not
being anchored with respect to anisotropic transience”, but to coding time and
is hence “independent from t-FoRs” (95). Evans is certainly right to state
that tense displays a different quality of time reference function. Against
the background of studies treating tense as a perspectival category which
conceptualizes an event with respect to the speaker’s “mental field of vision”
(cf. Janssen 2002) and is interrelated to basic referential strategies such as
‘allocentric’ versus ‘egocentric’ (Zeman 2012), the interrelationship between
lexical and grammatical anchoring relations seems nevertheless to be a
promising endeavor for future research.

With respect to the discussion about a general theory of meaning, this is also
linked to the question about the role of grammar in LCCM Theory. Within LCCM
Theory, lexical concepts concern purely linguistic semantic content and are
“conventionally associated with linguistic forms of all kinds”, as well as
including bound morphemes and grammatical constructions (Evans 2006: 501).
Grammar, however, is also seen as the context of lexical concepts which
exhibit specific patterns in terms of grammatical collocational tendencies
(cf. Evans 2006: 505f.). In other words, grammar is both part of the
“footprint” (Evans 2009: 127) that lexical concepts leave in the usage data,
and, at the same time, linked to the semantic structure of “lexical concepts”.
In this respect, the challenge for future research remains in how to account
for the different semantic functions of grammatical and lexical items and
integrate them into a general theory of meaning. 

Altogether, the volume is indeed not a book for the faint-hearted, since Evans
makes clear that there are no simple answers for complex issues. However, the
brave-hearted are rewarded with insights that are much more multifaceted than
the review could have pointed out and will form the basis for new kinds of
discussions on “our ongoing discovery of time's essence, and its mystery”
(Evans 2013: xv).

REFERENCES 

Evans, Vyvyan. 2004. The structure of time: Language, meaning and temporal
cognition. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins. 

Evans, Vyvyan. 2006. Lexical concepts, cognitive models and
meaning-construction. Cognitive Linguistics 17/4, 491–534

Evans, Vyvyan. 2009. How Words Mean: Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models and
Meaning Construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Galton, A. 2011. Time flies but space doesn't: limits to the spatialization of
time. Journal of Pragmatics 43/3, 695–703. 

Janssen, Theo A.J.M. 2002. Deictic principles of pronominals, demonstratives,
and tenses. In F. Brisard, ed., Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and
Reference. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter [Cognitive Linguistics Research 21],
151–193.

Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition. Explorations in
linguistic diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Sinha, C. et al. 2011. When time is not space: the social and linguistic
construction of time intervals in an Amazonian culture. Language and Cognition
3/1, 137–169.

Zeman, Sonja. 2012. More than ‘time’: The grammaticalization of the German
tense system and the ‘frame of reference’ as a crucial interface between space
and time. In Jaszczolt, Kasia / Filipović, Luna (eds.), Space and time in
Languages and Cultures. Language diversity. Amsterdam / Philadelphia:
Benjamins [Human Cognitive Processing 36], 157–178.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Sonja Zeman is assistant professor in the German Linguistics department at LMU
Munich. Her research interests include the semantics of verbal categories
(ATME), the conceptualization of space and time, grammaticalization & language
change, discourse structure, and the semantics/pragmatics interface.
Currently, she is working on patterns of perspectivization from a cognitive
and diachronic point of view.

----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-26-727	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.org/