Why Monday is not in front of Tuesday: On the uses of English and Finnish front adpositions in sequence metaphors of time

References

Bender, Andrea & Sieghard Beller. 2014. Mapping spatial frames of reference onto time: A review of theoretical accounts and empirical findings. Cognition 132. 342–382.10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.016Suche in Google Scholar

Boroditsky, Lera. 2000. Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition 75. 1–28.10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6Suche in Google Scholar

Boroditsky, Lera, Orly Fuhrman & Kelly McCormick. 2011. Do English and Mandarin speakers think about time differently? Cognition 118. 123–129.10.1037/e527342012-221Suche in Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. 1974. Space, time, semantics, and the child. In Timothy E. Moore (ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language, 27–63. New York: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-505850-6.50008-6Suche in Google Scholar

Dewell, Robert B. 2007. Why Monday comes before Tuesday: The role of a non-deictic conceptualizer. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 25(3). 291–301.10.2989/16073610709486464Suche in Google Scholar

Duffy, Sara & Michele Feist. 2014. Individual differences in the interpretation of ambiguous statements about time. Cognitive Linguistics 25(1). 29–54.10.1515/cog-2013-0030Suche in Google Scholar

Evans, Vyvyan. 2003. The Structure of Time: Language, Meaning and Temporal Cognition. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Suche in Google Scholar

Evans, Vyvyan. 2013a. Temporal frames of reference. Cognitive Linguistics 4(3). 393–435.10.1017/CBO9781107340626.018Suche in Google Scholar

Evans, Vyvyan. 2013b. Language and time: A cognitive linguistic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107340626Suche in Google Scholar

Galton, Antony. 2011. Time flies but space does not: Limits to the spatialisation of time. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 695–703.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.002Suche in Google Scholar

Grünthal, Riho. 2003. Finnic adpositions and cases in change. Mémoires de la Société Finno-ougrienne 244. Helsinki: Société Finno-ougrienne.Suche in Google Scholar

Hutchins, Edwin. 2006. Material anchors for conceptual blends. Journal of Pragmatics 37. 1555–1577.10.1016/j.pragma.2004.06.008Suche in Google Scholar

Huumo, Tuomas. 2013. Many ways of moving along a path: What distinguishes prepositional and postpositional uses of Finnish path adpositions. Lingua 133. 319–335.10.1016/j.lingua.2013.05.006Suche in Google Scholar

Huumo, Tuomas. 2015. Temporal frames of reference and the locative case marking of the Finnish adposition ete- ‘in front of/ahead’. Lingua 164. 45–67.10.1016/j.lingua.2015.06.008Suche in Google Scholar

Huumo, Tuomas. 2017. The grammar of temporal motion: A Cognitive Grammar account of motion metaphors of time. Cognitive Linguistics 28(1). 1–43.10.1515/cog-2016-0015Suche in Google Scholar

Huumo, Tuomas & Krista Ojutkangas. 2006. The Finnish system for expressing spatial relations: Local cases and adpositions. In Marja-Liisa Helasvuo & Lyle Campbell (eds.), Grammar from the human perspective: Case, space and person (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 277), 11–20. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.277.04huuSuche in Google Scholar

Keresztes, Kálmán. 1964. Morphemic and semantic analysis of the word families: Finnish Ete- and Hungarian El- “fore-”. (Uralic and Altaic Series 41). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Suche in Google Scholar

Kranjec, Alexander & Laraine McDonough. 2011. The implicit and explicit embodiment of time. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 735–748.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.004Suche in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1993. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4(1). 1–38.10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1Suche in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511613609Suche in Google Scholar

Matlock, Teenie, Kevin J. Holmes, Mahesh Srinivasan & Michael Ramscar. 2011. Even abstract motion influences the understanding of time. Metaphor and Symbol 26(4). 260–271.10.1080/10926488.2011.609065Suche in Google Scholar

Matlock, Teenie, Michael Ramscar & Lera Boroditsky. 2005. The experiential link between spatial and temporal language. Cognitive Science 29. 655–664.10.1207/s15516709cog0000_17Suche in Google Scholar

McIntyre, Andrew. 2007. Functional interpretations: Borderline idiosyncrasy in prepositional phrases and other expressions. http://www2.unine.ch/files/content/sites/andrew.mcintyre/files/shared/mcintyre/functional.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar

Moore, Kevin Ezra. 2006. Space-to-time mappings and temporal concepts. Cognitive Linguistics 17(2). 199–244.10.1515/COG.2006.005Suche in Google Scholar

Moore, Kevin Ezra. 2011a. Ego-perspective and field-based frames of reference: Temporal meanings of front in Japanese, Wolof, and Aymara. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 759–776.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.003Suche in Google Scholar

Moore, Kevin Ezra. 2011b. Frames and the experiential basis of the Moving Time metaphor. Constructions and Frames 3(1). 80–103.10.1075/bct.58.03mooSuche in Google Scholar

Moore, Kevin Ezra. 2014a. The spatial language of time (Human cognitive processing 42). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.42Suche in Google Scholar

Moore, Kevin Ezra. 2014b. The two-Mover hypothesis and the significance of “direction of motion” in temporal metaphors. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 12(2). 375–409.10.1075/rcl.12.2.05mooSuche in Google Scholar

Moore, Kevin Ezra. 2016. Elaborating time in space: The structure and function of space–Motion metaphors of time. Language and Cognition 9(2). 191–253. doi:10.1017/langcog.2016.6.Suche in Google Scholar

Nikanne, Urpo. 2003. How Finnish postpositions see the axis system. In Emile van der Zee & Jon Slacks (eds.), Representing direction in language and space, 191–208. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199260195.003.0010Suche in Google Scholar

Núñez, Rafael E. & Eve Sweetser. 2006. With the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Aymara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time. Cognitive Science 30. 401–450.10.1207/s15516709cog0000_62Suche in Google Scholar

Romero, Esther & Belén Soria. 2005. Cognitive Metaphor Theory revisited. Journal of Literary Semantics 34(1). 1–20.10.1515/jlse.2005.34.1.1Suche in Google Scholar

Shinohara, Kazuko & Yoshihiro Matsunara. 2010. Frames of reference, effects of motion, and lexical meanings of Japanese front/back terms. In Vyvyan Evans & Paul Chilton (eds.), Language, cognition, and space: The state of the art and new directions, 293–315. London: Equinox.Suche in Google Scholar

Shinohara, Kazuko & Prashant Pardeshi. 2011. The more in front, the later: The role of positional terms in time metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 749–758.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.001Suche in Google Scholar

Svorou, Soteria. 1994. The grammar of space (Typological Studies in Language 25). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.25Suche in Google Scholar

Talmy, Leonard. 1996. Fictive motion in language and “ception”. In Paul Bloom, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel & Merrill F. Garrett (eds.), Language and space, 211–276. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/4107.003.0008Suche in Google Scholar

Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. 1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6847.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Talmy, Leonard. 2007. The representation of spatial structure in spoken and signed language. In Maya Hickmann & Stéphane Robert (eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories (Typological Studies in Language 66), 207–238. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.66.13talSuche in Google Scholar

Tenbrink, Thora. 2007. Space, time, and the use of language: An investigation of relationships. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110198829Suche in Google Scholar

Tenbrink, Thora. 2011. Reference frames of space and time in language. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 704–722.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.020Suche in Google Scholar

Tyler, Andrea & Vyvyan Evans. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486517Suche in Google Scholar

Vandeloise, Claude. 1991. Spatial prepositions: A case study from French. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Wallington, Alan. 2012. Back to the future: Just where are forthcoming events located? In Luna Filipovic & Kasia M. Jaszczolt (eds.), Space and time in languages and cultures, vol. I: Linguistic diversity (Human Cognitive Processing 36), 83–99. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1075/hcp.37.08walSuche in Google Scholar

Zinken, Jörg. 2010. Temporal frames of reference. In Paul Chilton & Vyvyan Evans (eds.), Language, cognition, and space, 479–498. London: Equinox.Suche in Google Scholar