Пространственная семантика: новые достижения

Код статьиS0373658X0004901-0-1
Тип публикации Обзор
Статус публикации Опубликовано
Аффилиация: Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики»
Адрес: Российская Федерация, Москва
Аффилиация: Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики»
Адрес: Российская Федерация, Москва
Название журналаВопросы языкознания
ВыпускНомер 3
АннотацияВ данной работе рассматриваются тенденции в исследованиях пространственных и временных отношений в языке на основе четырех книг — «Space and time in languages and cultures: Language, culture, and cognition» (2012), «Motion encoding in language and space» (2013), «The spatial language of time. Metaphor, metonymy and frames of reference» (2014) и «Space in diachrony» (2017), — охватывающих широкий круг тем и подходов. Основные темы таковы: концептуализация времени и пространства в разных языках, влияние культуры на представления о времени и пространстве, гранулярность, системы координат в языке, глаголы движения, асимметричное выражение источника и цели. Используемые в исследованиях методы также очень разнообразны (формальные, экспериментальные, лексическая типология и т. д.) Многие работы демонстрируют тенденцию к междисциплинарным исследованиям: одна и та же проблема изучается с помощью разных подходов и рассматривается с разных ракурсов.
Ключевые словаасимметрия источника и цели, глаголы движения, гранулярность, метафора «время — пространство», системы координат в языке, пространственные отношения
Дата публикации24.06.2019
Кол-во символов60577
100 руб.
При оформлении подписки на статью или выпуск пользователь получает возможность скачать PDF, оценить публикацию и связаться с автором. Для оформления подписки требуется авторизация.

Оператором распространения коммерческих препринтов является ГАУГН-ПРЕСС

Размещенный ниже текст является ознакомительной версией и может не соответствовать печатной.


2 Over the past decade, the study of space and time has become a highly developed area of linguistics. Space and time as objects of investigation have proved to be fruitful and the methods used to study them are versatile, ranging from formal and experimental to anthropological participant observation, and lexical typology. Most recent studies (e.g. [Janda 2013; Molsing, Ibaños 2014]) combine these approaches and attempt, for example, to find cognitive parallels and explanations for the observed typological data or to conduct a formal semantic analysis of particular space and time expressions.
3 In this paper, we review studies of space and time that have been conducted over the last 10 years. The most prominent recent studies include, among others, [Evans 2004; 2013] on the definition of what time is and how it functions in language, [Ibarretxe-Antuñano (ed.) 2017] and [Hickmann, Robert (eds.) 2006] on motion and space, [Levinson 2006] on the grammars of space across languages. Since we are limited to the boundaries of a single overview paper, we have chosen four edited volumes for the detailed review: [Filipović, Jaszczolt 2012; Moore 2014; Luraghi et al. 2017], and [Vulchanova, van der Zee 2013], while also providing some additional information about some of the most significant journal papers. The reason for choosing the first three volumes is their interdisciplinarity and the wide range of approaches presented in them; many of the studies presented in these volumes deal with very similar issues but explore them within different frameworks, which allows to explore those topics from various angles and either provide additional support for the results, or point out their controversial nature. The fourth volume has been chosen because it is the first collection of papers devoted solely to granularity in language, which makes it a fundamental work for this line of research.
4 The authors of these volumes include both worldwide-known linguists and their younger colleagues, and the papers represent well-established frameworks as well as new and highly promising approaches to old issues. The main topics of interest in these volumes are as follows: language-specific systems of space and time conceptualization, cultural differences in understanding time, space and time (dis)analogy, granularity, frame of reference, verbs of motion, and Source vs. Goal asymmetry.
5 Our review begins with a brief description of notions that are relevant to the study of space and time in the recent 20–30 years. In the rest of this article, each section corresponds to one of the volumes listed above. We start by discussing the most general volumes that cover relatively wide sets of problems and contain papers that use different approaches and frameworks. Then, we proceed to more specific issues that receive special attention in those volumes, such as granularity, frame of reference and diachronic development of spatial expressions across languages.

1. Important notions

7 TIME-IS-SPACE metaphor. According to the theory proposed by Lakoff and Johnson [1980a; 1980b; 1999], our ability to conceptualize time and encode it in linguistic terms is mediated by a metaphorical mapping of the basic terms used for describing our spatial experience from the domain of space onto the more abstract domain of time. This mapping is argued to be typologically universal and influence the way spatial terms acquire time-related semantics. The TIME-IS-SPACE metaphor and, more widely, the relations between time and space in general have become crucial in the discussion of the cognitive aspects of language functioning and development (see [Clark 1973; Traugott 1978; Langacker 1987; Lehrer 1990; Haspelmath 1997; Heine, Kuteva 2002]).
8 Verb-framed vs. satellite-framed languages. According to [Talmy 1985; 1991], languages differ in how they encode the information about path and manner of motion. In verb-framed languages, e.g. in Spanish, verbal roots encode the information about the path of motion, cf. Talmy’s prototypical example: la botella salió flotando, lit. ‘the bottle exited floating’, where the verb salió expresses the path, and the manner is expressed by the gerund flotando. In satellite-framed languages, like English, the manner is encoded within the verb and the path is expressed by a satellite, cf. the following example: the bottle floated out. Here the verb floated only expresses the manner of motion, while the path is expressed by out. This typology has been widely discussed in the literature, cf. [Slobin 1996a; 2004; Pedersen, Nimb 2000; Acedo-Matellán, Mateu 2013].
9 Fictive motion is usually defined as the metaphorical motion of an object through space, when an inherently static situation is conceptualized in terms of motion and encoded by dynamic means. According to Talmy, this phenomenon involves a discrepancy between two cognitive representations (static and dynamic) of the same situation within the cognition of an individual [Talmy 2000a: 100].

Всего подписок: 2, всего просмотров: 222

Оценка читателей: голосов 0

1. Acedo-Matellán, Mateu 2013 — Acedo-Matellán V., Mateu J. Satellite-framed Latin vs. verb-framed Romance: A syntactic approach. International Journal of Latin and Romance Linguistics, 2013, 25(2): 227–265.

2. Asher 2011 — Asher N. Lexical meaning in context: A web of words. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011.

3. Carlson, van der Zee 2005 — Carlson L., van der Zee E. (eds.). Functional features in language and space: Insights from perception, categorization, and development. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press on Demand, 2005.

4. Clark 1973 — Clark H. Space, time, semantics, and the child. Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. Moore T. E. (ed.). New York: Academic Press, 1973, 27–63.

5. Dahl 2001 — Dahl Ö. Inflationary effects in language and elsewhere. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. (Typological Studies in Language, 45.) Bybee J., Hopper P. (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001, 471–480.

6. Evans 2004 — Evans V. The structure of time. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004.

7. Evans 2013 — Evans V. Language and time: A Cognitive Linguistics approach. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013.

8. Filipović, Jaszczolt 2012 — Filipović L., Jaszczolt K. M. Space and time in languages and cultures: Language, culture, and cognition. (Human Cognitive Processing Series, 37.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2012.

9. Goddard, Wierzbicka 2002 — Goddard C., Wierzbicka A. (eds.). Meaning and Universal Grammar: Theory and empirical findings. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2002.

10. Haspelmath 1997 — Haspelmath M. From space to time: Temporal adverbials in the world’s languages. Munich: Lincom Europa, 1997.

11. Heine, Kuteva 2002 — Heine B., Kuteva T. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002.

12. Hickmann, Robert (eds.) 2006 — Hickmann M., Robert S. (eds.). Space in languages. Linguistic systems and cognitive categories. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publ., 2006.

13. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (ed.) 2017 — Ibarretxe-Antuñano I. Motion and space across languages: Theory and applications. (Human Cognitive Processing, 59.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2017.

14. Ikegami 1987 — Ikegami Y. ‘Source’ vs. ‘goal’: A case of linguistic dissymmetry. Concepts of case. Dirven R., Radden G. (eds.). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 1987, 122–146.

15. Janda 2013 — Janda L. (ed.). Aspect in Slavic: Creating time, creating grammar (Special issue). Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 2013, 21(1).

16. Jódar-Sánchez 2015 — Jódar-Sánchez J. A. [Review of:] Kevin E. Moore (2014). The Spatial Language of Time. Metaphor, Metonymy and Frames of Reference. Metaphor and the Social World, 2015, 5(1): 155–163.

17. Kabata 2013 — Kabata K. Goal–source asymmetry and crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns: A cognitive-typological approach. Language Sciences Volume, 2013, 36: 78–89.

18. Lakoff, Johnson 1980a — Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1980.

19. Lakoff, Johnson 1980b — Lakoff G., Johnson M. The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive Science, 1980, 4(2): 195–208.

20. Lakoff, Johnson 1999 — Lakoff G., Johnson M. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. Vol. 4. New York: Basic Books, 1999.

21. Lakusta 2005 — Lakusta L. M. Source and Goal asymmetry in non-linguistic motion event representations. Ph.D. diss. The John Hopkins Univ., 2005.

22. Langacker 1987 — Langacker R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 1). Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 1987.

23. Le Guen et al. 2012 — Le Guen O., Balam P., Ildefonsa L. No metaphorical timeline in gesture and cognition among Yucatec Mayas. Frontiers in Psychology, 2012, 3: 271. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00271.

24. Lehrer 1990 — Lehrer A. Polysemy, conventionality, and the structure of the lexicon. Cognitive Linguistics (includes Cognitive Linguistic Bibliography). 1990, No. 1, Issue 2: 207–246.

25. Levinson (ed.) 2006 — Levinson S. (ed.). Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006.

26. Levinson, Majid 2013 — Levinson S. C., Majid A. The island of time: Yélî Dnye, the language of Rossel Island. Frontiers in Psychology, 2013, 4: 61. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00061.

27. Levinson et al. 2002 — Levinson S. C., Kita S., Haun D. B. M., Rasch B. H. Returning the tables: Language affects spatial reasoning. Cognition, 2002, Vol. 84, Issue 2: 155–188.

28. Levinson 2003 — Levinson S. C. Space in language and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003.

29. Li, Gleitman 2002 — Li P., Gleitman L. R. Turning the tables: Spatial language and spatial reasoning. Cognition. 2002, Vol. 83, Issue 3: 265–294.

30. Luraghi et al. 2017 — Luraghi S., Nikitina T., Zanchi C. (eds.). Space in diachrony. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2017.

31. Mackenzie 1978 — Mackenzie J. L. Ablative-locative transfers and their relevance to the theory of grammar. Journal of Linguistics, 1978, 14(2): 129–156.

32. Majid et al. 2004 — Majid A., Bowerman M., Kita S., Haun D. B. M., Levinson S. C. Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2004, 8(3): 108–114.

33. Matlock et al. 2005 — Matlock T., Ramscar M., Boroditsky L. On the experiential link between spatial and temporal language. Cognitive Science, 2005, 29(4): 655–664.

34. Molsing, Ibaños 2014 — Molsing K. V., Ibaños A. M. T. (eds.). Time and TAME in language. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publ., 2014.

35. Moore 2014 — Moore K. The spatial language of time. Metaphor, metonymy and frames of reference. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2014.

36. Morrow, Clark 1988 — Morrow D. G., Clark H. H. Interpreting words in spatial descriptions. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1988, Vol. 3, Issue 4: 275–291.

37. Narasimhan, Kopecka 2012 — Narasimhan B., Kopecka A. (eds.). Events of putting and taking. A crosslinguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2012.

38. Nikitina 2009 — Nikitina T. Subcategorization pattern and lexical meaning of motion verbs: A study of the Source/Goal ambiguity. Linguistics, 2009, 47(5): 1113–1141.

39. Núñez et al. 2012 — Núñez R., Cooperrider K., Doan D., Wassmann J. Contours of time: Topographic construals of past, present, and future in the Yupno valley of Papua New Guinea. Cognition, 2012, 124(1): 25–35.

40. O’Meara, Pérez Báez 2011 — O’Meara C., Pérez Báez G. (eds.). Frames of reference in Mesoamerican languages (Special issue). Language Sciences, 2011, 33(6).

41. Pantcheva 2010 — Pantcheva M. The syntactic structure of locations, goals, and sources. Linguistics, 2010, 48(5): 1043–1081.

42. Papafragou 2010 — Papafragou A. Source-Goal asymmetries in motion representation: Implications for language production and comprehension. Cognitive Science, 2010, 34(6): 1064–1092.

43. Pedersen, Nimb 2000 — Pedersen B. S., Nimb S. Semantic encoding of Danish verbs in SIMPLE-Adapting a verb-framed model to a satellite-framed language. Proc. of LREC, 2000.

44. Pederson et al. 1998 — Pederson E., Danziger E., Wilkins D. P., Levinson S. C., Kita S., Senft G. Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language, 1998, 74(3): 557–589.

45. Slobin 1996a — Slobin D. I. Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning. Shibatani M., Thompson S. (eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996: 195–219.

46. Slobin 1996b — Slobin D. I. From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. Studies in the social and cultural foundations of language. No. 17: Rethinking linguistic relativity. Gumperz J. J., Levinson S. C. (eds.). New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996, 70–96.

47. Slobin 2004 — Slobin D. I. The many ways to search for a frog: linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. Relating events in narrative. Vol. 2: Typological and contextual perspectives. Strömqvist S., Verhoeven L. (eds.). Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publ., 2004, 219–257.

48. Stolz et al. 2014 — Stolz T., Lestrade S., Stolz C. The crosslinguistics of zero-marking of spatial relations. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2014.

49. Talmy 1983 — Talmy L. How language structures space. Spatial orientation. Pick H. L., Acredolo L. P. (eds.). New York: Plenum Press, 1983, 225–282.

50. Talmy 1985 — Talmy L. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 1985, 99(3): 57–149.

51. Talmy 1991 — Talmy L. Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1991, 17(1): 480–519.

52. Traugott 1978 — Traugott E. C. On the expression of spatio-temporal relations in language. Universals of Human Language, 1978, 3: 369–400.

53. Talmy 2000a — Talmy L. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000.

54. Talmy 2000b — Talmy L. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 2: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 2000.

55. Vulchanova, van der Zee 2013 — Vulchanova M., van der Zee E. (eds.). Motion encoding in language and space. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2013.

Система Orphus