LINGUIST List 26.1329
Mon Mar 09 2015
Review: Cog Sci; Semantics; Typology: Moore (2014)
Editor for this issue: Sara Couture <saralinguistlist.org>
Date: 17-Nov-2014
From: Kathryn Farmer <Kathryn.Farmer
unt.edu>
Subject: The Spatial Language of Time
E-mail this message to a friend Discuss this message 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.
Page Updated: 09-Mar-2015