Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Cognitive Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Divjak, Dagmar

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.902
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 2.297

CiteScore 2018: 2.09

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 1.075
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 2.063

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 26, Issue 4


Moving beyond ‘Next Wednesday’: The interplay of lexical semantics and constructional meaning in an ambiguous metaphoric statement

Michele I. Feist / Sarah E. Duffy
Published Online: 2015-09-10 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2015-0052


What factors influence our understanding of metaphoric statements about time? By examining the interpretation of one such statement – namely, Next Wednesday’s meeting has been moved forward by two days – earlier research has demonstrated that people may draw on spatial perspectives, involving multiple spatially based temporal reference strategies, to interpret metaphoric statements about time (e.g. Boroditsky 2000; Kranjec 2006; McGlone and Harding 1998; Núñez et al. 2006). However, what is still missing is an understanding of the role of linguistic factors in the interpretation of temporal statements such as this one. In this paper, we examine the linguistic properties of this famous temporally ambiguous utterance, considered as an instantiation of a more schematic construction. In Experiment 1, we examine the roles of individual lexical items that are used in the utterance in order to better understand the interplay of lexical semantics and constructional meaning in the context of a metaphoric statement. Following up on prior suggestions in the literature, we ask whether the locus of the ambiguity is centred on the adverb, centred on the verb, or distributed across the utterance. The results suggest that the final interpretation results from an interplay of verb and adverb, suggesting a distributed temporal semantics analogous to the distributed semantics noted for the metaphoric source domain of space (Sinha and Kuteva 1995) and consistent with a constructional view of language (Goldberg 2003). In Experiment 2, we expand the linguistic factors under investigation to include voice and person. The findings suggest that grammatical person, but not grammatical voice, may also influence the interpretation of the Next Wednesday’s meeting metaphor. Taken together, the results of these two studies illuminate the interplay of lexical and constructional factors in the interpretation of temporal metaphors.

Keywords: Moving Time; Moving Ego; metaphor; ambiguity; Construction Grammar; verb; adverb; person; voice; temporal semantics


  • Boroditsky, Lera. 2000. Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition 75(1). 1–28.Google Scholar

  • Boroditsky, Lera & Michael Ramscar. 2002. The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychological Science 13(2). 185–188.Google Scholar

  • Brunyé, Tad T., Tali. Ditman, Caroline R. Mahoney, Jason S. Augustyn & Holly A. Taylor. 2009. When you and I share perspectives: Pronouns modulate perspective taking during narrative comprehension. Psychological Science 20, 27–32.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Cambridge Dictionaries Online. 2013. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ (accessed June 2013).

  • Clark, Herbert H. 1973. Space, time, semantics, and the child. In T. E. Moore (ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language, 27–63. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Davies, Mark. 2004–. BYU-BNC. (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press). http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/ (accessed June 2014).

  • Davies, Mark. 2013. Corpus of Global Web-Based English: 1.9 billion words from speakers in 20 countries. http://corpus2.byu.edu/glowbe/ (accessed June 2013 and June 2014).

  • Dennis, John L. & Arthur B. Markman. 2005. Are abstract concepts structured via more concrete concepts? In B. G. Bara L. Barsalou & M. Bucciarelli (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 2467. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

  • Duffy, Sarah E. & Michele I. Feist. 2014. Individual differences in the interpretation of ambiguous statements about time. Cognitive Linguistics 25(1). 29–54.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Duffy, Sarah E., Michele I. Feist & Steven McCarthy. 2014. Moving through time: The role of personality in three real life contexts. Cognitive Science 38(8). 1662–1674.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Elvevåg, Brita, Kim Helsen, Marc De Hert, Kim Sweers & Gert Storms. 2011. Metaphor interpretation and use: A window into semantics in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research 133(1–3). 205–211.Google Scholar

  • Evans, Vyvyan. 2004. The structure of time: Language, meaning, and temporal cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Farmer, Thomas A., Jennifer B. Misyak & Morten H. Christiansen. 2012. Individual differences in sentence processing. In M. Spivey, M. Joannisse & K. McRae (eds.), Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics, 353–364. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Östman. 2005. Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics 37(11). 1752–1778.Google Scholar

  • Gentner, Dedre, Mutsumi Imai & Lera Boroditsky. 2002. As time goes by: Evidence for two systems in processing space time metaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes 17(5). 537–565.Google Scholar

  • Giora, Rachel. 1997. Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 8(3). 183–206.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 7(5). 219–224.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Glucksberg, Sam. 2001. Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Grice, Herbert Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kranjec, A. 2006. Extending spatial frames of reference to temporal concepts. In R. Sun & N. Miyake (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 447–452. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

  • Kranjec, Alexander & Laraine McDonough. 2011. The implicit and explicit embodiment of time. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 735–748.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Lakoff, George. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 2nd edn., 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • MacDonald, Maryellen C. & Mark S. Seidenberg. 2006. Constraint satisfaction accounts of lexical and sentence comprehension. In M. Traxler & M. Gernsbacher (eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics, 2nd edn., 581–611. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • McElree, Brian & Johanna Nordlie. 1999. Literal and figurative interpretations are computed in parallel. Psychonomic Bulletin Review 6. 486–494.Google Scholar

  • McGlone, Matthew S. & Jennifer L. Harding. 1998. Back (or forward?) to the future: The role of perspective in temporal language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 24. 1211–1223.Google Scholar

  • McTaggart, John. 1908. The unreality of time. Mind 17. 457–474.Google Scholar

  • Núñez, Rafael, Benjamin Motz & 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.Google Scholar

  • Oxford English Dictionary: The Definitive Record of the English Language. 2007. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Princeton University. 2010. WordNet. http://wordnet.princeton.edu/ (accessed July 2014).

  • Restak, Richard. 2011. Empathy and other mysteries. American Scholar 80(1). 44–52.Google Scholar

  • Richmond, Jill, J. Clare Wilson & Jörg Zinken. 2012. A feeling for the future: How does agency in time metaphors relate to feelings? European Journal of Social Psychology 42(7). 813–823.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Sato, Manami & Benjamin K. Bergen. 2013. The case of the missing pronouns: Does mentally simulated perspective play a functional role in the comprehension of person? Cognition 127. 361–374.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Sinha, Chris & Tania Kuteva. 1995. Distributed spatial semantics. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 18. 167–199.Google Scholar

  • Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 209–243.Google Scholar

  • Trueswell, John & Michael Tanenhaus. 1994. Toward a lexicalist framework for constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier and K. Rayner (eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing, 155–179. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

  • Vallacher, Robin R. & Daniel M. Wegner. 1989. Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Personality Processes and Individual Differences 57(4). 660–671.Google Scholar

  • Widdowson, Henry. 2003. Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2013-11-30

Revised: 2015-05-21

Accepted: 2015-06-10

Published Online: 2015-09-10

Published in Print: 2015-11-01

Citation Information: Cognitive Linguistics, Volume 26, Issue 4, Pages 633–656, ISSN (Online) 1613-3641, ISSN (Print) 0936-5907, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2015-0052.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Mónica González-Márquez, Michele I. Feist, and Liane Ströbel
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2017, Volume 40
Language and Cognition, 2017, Volume 9, Number 1, Page 172
Language and Cognition, 2017, Volume 9, Number 4, Page 637
Kurt Stocker and Matthias Hartmann
Swiss Journal of Psychology, 2019, Volume 78, Number 1-2, Page 61
Rose K. Hendricks, Benjamin K. Bergen, and Tyler Marghetis
Cognitive Science, 2018
Annemijn C. Loermans and Taciano L. Milfont
Journal of Research in Personality, 2017

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in