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

Research in Language

The Journal of University of Lodz

4 Issues per year

CiteScore 2016: 0.27

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.271
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.453

Open Access
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 12, Issue 4


Degrees of Propositionality in Construals of Time Quantities1

Mikołaj Deckert / Piotr Pęzik
Published Online: 2015-06-15 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/rela-2015-0003


The paper investigates the possible conceptual bases of differences between seemingly synonymous and easily definable temporal expressions. Looking at the usage patterns of nominal temporal phrases in reference corpora of English and Polish we attempt to relate these subtleties to the different granularity of the cognitive scales on which construals of time quantities in general are based. More specifically, we focus on a subset of nominal temporal expressions which adhere to the “number + time unit” pattern, matching what Haspelmath (1997: 26) describes as “culture-bound artificial time units”. Using the British National Corpus (BNC) and the National Corpus of Polish (NCP), we first analyse both the variation and the regularity found in naturally-occurring samples of Polish and English. Finally, we compare the patterns of use emerging from the two corpora and arrive at cross-linguistic generalisations about the conceptualisation of time quantities.

Keywords: time; temporal expressions; cognitive linguistics; Polish; corpus linguistics; conceptualisation; English


  • 1Research carried out within COST Action TD0904 TIMELY, supported by the National Science Centre (NCN), grant No. 2011/01/M/H 2/03042, Percepcja czasu jako kategorii językowej [Perception of Time as a Linguistic Category].


  • Alverson, Hoyt 1994. Semantics and experience: Universal metaphors of time in English, Mandarin, Hindi, and Sesotho. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

  • Casasanto, Daniel & Lera Boroditsky. 2008. Time in the mind: Using space to think about time, Cognition 106, 579–593.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

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

  • Dehaene, Stanislas & Jacques Mehler 1992. Cross-linguistic regularities in the frequency of number words, Cognition, 43: 1–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Davidson, Donald 1967. Truth and meaning, Synthese 17(3), 304–323.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Evans, Vyvyan 2004. The structure of time. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Evans, Vyvyan 2013. Temporal frames of reference, Cognitive Linguistics 24(3), 393–435.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Evans, Vyvyan & Melanie Green 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ and Edinburgh: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates/Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

  • Everett, Caleb & Madora, Keren 2012. Quantity recognition among speakers of an anumeric language, Cognitive Science 36: 1, 130–141.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Everett, Caleb 2013. Linguistic relativity and numeric cognition: New light on a prominent test case, Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 91–103Google Scholar

  • Geeraerts Dirk & Hubert Cuyckens 2007. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Geeraerts, Dirk 2006. (ed.) Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Gelman, Rochel & Gallistel, Randy C. 1978. The Child’s Understanding of Number. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Gruber, Jeffrey 1965. Studies in lexical relations. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin 1997. From space to time: Temporal adverbials in the world’s languages. Munich and Newcastle: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

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

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Pęzik, Piotr 2012. Wyszukiwarka PELCRA dla danych NKJP. In Adam Przepiórkowski, Mirosław Bańko, Rafał Górski, and Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds.) Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 253–279.Google Scholar

  • Pica, Pierre, Lemer, Cathy, Izard, Véronique & Stanislas, Dehaene 2004. Exact and approximate arithmetic in an Amazonian indigene group. Science 306, 499–503.Google Scholar

  • Sarnecka, Barbara W. & Carey, Susan 2008. How counting represents number: What children must learn and when they learn it, Cognition, 108, 662–667.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Szabó, Zoltán G. 2013. Compositionality, In Edward N. Zalta (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Werning, Markus 2012. Non-Symbolic Compositional Representation and Its Neuronal Foundations: Towards an Emulative Semantics, In Markus Werning, Wolfram Hinzen, and Edouard Machery (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality, Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics. Oxford New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 633–724.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2015-06-15

Published in Print: 2014-12-01

Citation Information: Research in Language, Volume 12, Issue 4, Pages 341–353, ISSN (Online) 2083-4616, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/rela-2015-0003.

Export Citation

© Mikołaj Deckert et al.. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in