26.1329, Review: Cog Sci; Semantics; Typology: Moore (2014)

[The LINGUIST List via LINGUIST]

LINGUIST List: Vol-26-1329. Mon Mar 09 2015. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 26.1329, Review: Cog Sci; Semantics; Typology: Moore (2014)

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

*************    LINGUIST List 2015 Fund Drive    *************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:

              http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/

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


Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 17:50:01
From: Kathryn Farmer [Kathryn.Farmer at unt.edu]
Subject: The Spatial Language of Time

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=35980277


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/25/25-2685.html

AUTHOR: Kevin Ezra  Moore
TITLE: The Spatial Language of Time
SUBTITLE: Metaphor, metonymy, and frames of reference
SERIES TITLE: Human Cognitive Processing 42
PUBLISHER: John Benjamins
YEAR: 2014

REVIEWER: Kathryn Bailey Farmer, University of North Texas

Review's Editor: Helen Aristar-Dry

SUMMARY

In “The Spatial Language of Time”, Kevin Ezra Moore continues the discussion
of the TIME IS SPACE metaphor by examining how it is used in both English and
Wolof, an Atlantic language spoken in Senegal and other areas of West Africa. 
As Moore is quick to point out, this book is not, and was not meant to be, a
typological study of temporal metaphors.  Rather, by comparing in detail the
usage of spatial metaphors of time in these two unrelated languages, Moore
demonstrates the strengths and weaknesses of current theories of metaphor and
provides support for the idea that some function of underlying cognition,
rather than of language itself, motivates metaphors such as these to exist.

To open the discussion, Chapter 1 focuses on the precedent for research of the
time space metaphor by reviewing conceptual metaphor theory generally (Lakoff
and Johnson 1980) as well as by establishing how this book will handle the
concept of time-- as a human experience, rather than as an abstract entity. 
Moore also discusses the Wolof data that will be presented to the reader
throughout the book.  Many other concepts are introduced in the opening
chapter, including moving ego and eco-centered moving time metaphors and
conceptual frames, but each of these will be evaluated in much further depth
in chapters to come.

Chapter 2, “The deictic nature of Moving Ego and Ego-centered Moving Time
expressions” provides analysis, explanation, and data to support the idea that
Moving Ego (henceforth referred to as ME) and Ego-centered Moving Time
(henceforth referred to as EcMT) are distinct categories of metaphor both in
English and Wolof and that they both rely on deictic properties to achieve
their goals.  Moore provides readers with the following example from English
of the two types of metaphors.

We are approaching Christmas (ME)
Christmas is approaching (EcMT)

In example 1, the event (Christmas) is a fixed location which the speaker is
moving towards.  In example 2, however, it is the event which is moving toward
the stationary speaker.  

Moore shows that as much as “here” and “there” are deictic terms, so then are
“now” and “then.”  This demonstration provides a foundation for Chapter 3, in
which Moore argues that because they are inherently deictic functions both ME
and EcMT metaphors are based in a psychological reality.  He supports this
claim with experimental evidence, citing McGlone and Harding (1998).  The
study in question provided the participants with a psychological context of
either ME or EcMT style constructions of time.  They then recorded the
response times of participants when asked questions which either continued
their metaphorical context or switched to the other style and found that
participants were slower to respond to questions outside of their established
context, demonstrating that ME and EcMT were distinctly psychologically real .
 Moore uses this study as a starting point, then provides evidence from Wolof
and English concerning  the way that each of these realities is represented in
the language and their experiential motivations.

Part I ends with Chapters 4 and 5, which each focus on a different area of
distinction between ME and EcMT metaphors, directional motion and frame of
reference.  Chapter 4, a relatively short chapter, discusses the different
directions of motion between the two metaphors.  In the case of ME, the ego is
moving forward (what might be perceived as left to right), while in EcMT
metaphors, time is moving backward as compared to the direction of the ego
(perceived as right to left).  However, Chapter 4 also introduces other types
of metaphors, which fall into one of these two categories of motion.  For
example, in what Moore calls the “A Situation is a Mover” metaphors, we see a
structure similar to that of ME, except that the ego has been replaced by some
event or situation.  Moore demonstrates this concept with familiar phrases
from English before moving on to showing examples of this construction in
Wolof as well.  Chapter 5 turns to conceptual frames (Fillmore 1982), showing
that the reversal of motion seen in Chapter 4, is caused by a reversal of
figure and ground within the motional frame of reference.

Chapters 6 – 9 make up Part II, “Perspectival neutrality”, which moves away
from deictically based metaphors and on to those which rely on other aspects
of spatial order, particularly that of sequence.  Moore uses Talmy’s
terminology (2000) and refers to these metaphors as a field based frame of
reference.  The two primary categories of metaphor discussed by Moore in these
chapters are SEQUENCE IS A RELATIVE POSITION ON A PATH and SEQUENCE IS A
RELATIVE POSITION IN A STACK.  Like ME and EcMT, Moore uses experimental
evidence as well as language data to demonstrate the psychological reality of
each of these conditions as well as their use in each language.  He cites
Nunez, Motz and Teuscher (2006) as his primary source for this experimental
data, but also references Gentner, Imai and Boroditsky (2002) as support for
the claim.  The methods and discussion of the material in Part 2 mimic very
closely those of Part 1.

Part III, “The temporal semantics of IN-FRONT and BEHIND” is the largest
section of the book.  Contained within it are 7 chapters (10-16) that seek to
find cross-linguistic and cross-metaphorical patterns of the TIME IS SPACE
concept.  To do this, Moore more often uses language data from outside either
English or Wolof as a way to more firmly ground his arguments.  Sometimes an
additional language is used to show that the usages found in English and Wolof
are not unique, such as the comparison of Japanese ‘mae’ and Wolof ‘kanam’ in
Chapter 10, “The contrasting FRONT/BEHIND schemas of SEQUENCE IS RELATIVE
POSITION ON A PATH and Moving Ego.”  In other cases, additional languages are
used as counterexamples to demonstrate markedness, as is done by introducing
Spanish, Hausa, and Shona data in Chapter 11, “The pairing of IN-FRONT and 
BEHIND with ‘earlier’ and later’”.  However, one language, Aymara, receives an
in-depth discussion in Chapter 12, “The alignment of ego with a field-based
frame of reference,” because of its uncommon usage of IN-FRONT to represent
the past.  In the vast majority of languages, including English and Wolof, the
space ‘ahead’ or ‘in-front of’ a person is commonly used to represent the
future.  The case of Aymara is odd because it completely reverses this
relationship.  Moore shows that Aymara speakers accomplish this by avoiding
the motional frame of reference in their metaphors.  This idea not only
explains this feature of Aymara, but also strengthens the claim that the
motional frame of reference is being used by other languages.   The remainder
of Chapter 12 is used to discuss other possible frames which may be at work in
Aymara, while the remaining chapters in Part III are used to discuss the
various frames of reference used in Wolof and English and their implications
for the language.  Each of these chapters shares a similar structure, with a
focus on a different aspect of these metaphorical frames.  When viewed as a
single unit, Part III comprises the heart of the book.

Part IV, “Location without translational motion,” Moore takes us through
examples of spatial metaphors of time that do not rely on any kind of motion. 
While it might have seemed that the TIME IS A RELATIVE POSITION IN A SEQUENCE
and TIME IS A RELATIVE POSITION IN A STACK metaphors discussed in Part II are
without motion, they still require some abstract movement through the sequence
or stack.  The metaphors discussed in Part IV require no conceptual movement
and take the form of TIMES ARE LOCATIONS.  Because this is an idea being
proposed by Moore, he does not have the amount of experimental evidence to
support it that was offered in Parts I and II.  He does, however, provide
language data in both Wolof and English to support the claim that TIMES ARE
LOCATIONS has an experiential basis like those established metaphors
previously discussed.  Most of Chapter 17 is dedicated to the argument that
TIMES ARE LOCATIONS is a unique metaphorical concept, distinct from other
frames including ME and EcMT.

Chapter 18 focuses on conceptual integration (Fauconnier and Turner 2002).  In
this chapter, Moore temporarily abandons metaphors of time and space, choosing
instead to give the reader an introduction to conceptual “blending.”  Though
it does not give any new data relevant to the overall goals of the book, this
chapter provides a solid platform for the discussions in Chapter 19, which
rely on the reader having a firm grasp of conceptual blending as it compares
the English “find” to Wolof “fekk”.  While it is perhaps less central to the
book’s argument as a whole, Chapter 19 nevertheless provides one the most
interesting in-depth comparisons between English and Wolof.  On the surface
“find” and “fekk” seem to be equivalent, but upon further examination, we find
important usage differences that point at differences in the conceptual
backgrounds employed in the metaphors.  This gives rise to a brief discussion
of linguistic relativity and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (Sapir 1949, Whorf
1956) before returning to the primary topic in Chapter 20, “Time as a bounded
region.”

Part V is a short section, containing only two chapters (21 and 22).  In
Chapter 21, Moore steps away from spatial metaphors of time to examine how
other temporal metaphors are treated in Wolof.  In this chapter we discover
that while ‘time’ in English can be treated as a resource and commodity that
can be spent, saved and wasted, its equivalent in Wolof, ‘jot’, is less
versatile.  Through many examples and counterexamples, we see that ‘jot’ can
be possessed and that a person can have more or less ‘jot,’ but they cannot
pass possession on to another in any way. In Wolof, ‘jot’ cannot be spent,
wasted, or bought.  Therefore, in Wolof, the metaphor TIME IS MONEY does not
hold.  Moore argues that the TIME IS MONEY metaphor can only exist in a
culture where the relationship between the two concepts is experientially
possible and that it has no experiential basis within Wolof speaking
communities.  He does note, however, that Wolof speakers who also speak French
or English will use the metaphor in those languages.

The book ends with Chapter 22, which provides a cumulative summary of the
findings and conclusions of the book, which have been summarized above.  

EVALUATION

The book provides an in-depth description of the usage of the various
TIME/SPACE metaphors in both Wolof and English.  While the book makes some
claims about the usefulness of this data for the evaluation of conceptual
metaphor and cognition generally, for the most part it assumes that readers
will be able to make these connections on their own; therefore, this book will
be best used by those who come to it with a pre-established background in
conceptual metaphors and their relationship to cognition.  It is certainly not
an introductory text.  Because Moore relies heavily on terminology and
theories from Lakoff, readers should be familiar with this work. 

With regard to the data used to support the claims, the book finds the proper
balance between brevity and comprehensiveness.  Each concept that is discussed
in the book is supported with examples from both English and Wolof if both are
possible.  When they are not, the author typically supplies appropriate
negative examples to demonstrate the point.  Yet the book never offers so much
data so as to become redundant.  Because of this, it is by no means a complete
account of Wolof, a point which Moore states firmly and clearly in the early
chapters of the book.  This book serves neither as a grammar or typology of
Wolof, and readers who desire either should look elsewhere.   

Moore’s claims about metaphor are supported both by the data in the text and
by previous research.  Though this work is not experimental in nature, Moore
often cites experimental studies which provide a compelling dual argument when
combined with the language data in Wolof and English.  He explains his ideas
clearly, with a few minor exceptions, particularly with regard to the
directionality of metaphorical motion.  In those cases, the confusion is not
caused by faulty ideas, but rather by some underlying assumptions that, if
overtly stated rather than implied, would give more clarity to the
argumentation.  However, once the reader discovers those assumptions, the rest
of the text is quite clear.

The book has a cohesive objective about metaphor that is established in
Chapter 1 and restated again in the conclusion, namely to “explore the details
of certain spatial construals of time as thoroughly as possible for a few
languages, in order to gain an understanding of some of the principles
involved in applying spatial concepts to time.”   Each of the book’s 22
chapters helps develop and further this objective through a detailed
description of metaphor in both English and Wolof.   Moore weaves connections
between the two languages with finesse, letting the reader clearly see the
commonalities and providing explanations for areas of difference.  This book
is an excellent resource for researchers interested in conceptual metaphors of
time, providing a unique, cross-linguistic perspective to the ongoing
conversation.

REFERENCES

Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner. 2002.  The Way We Think: Conceptual
blending and the mind’s hidden complexities.  New York: Basic Books.

Fillmore, Charles.  1982.  Frame semantics.  In The Linguistic Society of
Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm: Selected Papers from SICOL –
1981, 111-137.

Gentner, Dedre, M. Imai and L. Boroditsky.  2002.  As time goes by: Evidence
for two systems in processing space→ time metaphors.  Language and Cognitive
Processes 17: 537-565.

Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson.  1980.  Metaphors we Live By.  Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

McGlone, Matthew and Jennifer Harding.  1998.  Back (or forward?) to the
future: the role of perspectives in temporal language comprehension.  Journal
of Experimental Psychology 24:1211-1223.

Nunez, Rafael, Benjamin Motz and Ursina Teuscher.  2006.  Time after time: The
psychological reality of the ego- and time-reference-point distinction in
metaphorical construals of time.  Metaphor and Symbol 21: 133-146.

Sapir, Edward. 1949.  Selected Writings of Edward Sapir.  Berkeley: University
of California Press.

Talmy, Leonard.  2000.  Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Volume 1, Concept
Structuring Systems.  Cambridge: MIT Press.

Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1956. Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings
of Benjamin Lee Whorf.  Cambridge: The MIT Press.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Kathryn Farmer is a Research Scientist at the Human-intelligence and Language
Technologies lab at the University of North Texas (Denton, Texas, USA). Her MA
thesis was on spatio-temporal metaphors and their interaction with other
cognitive functions. Her current research focuses on human language cognition
and its implementation in artificial intelligences.





----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-26-1329	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.org/