Temporal versus atemporal relations

In the previous chapter we briefly introduced Langacker’s distinction between summary scanning and sequential scanning. Scanning is viewed as a type of cognitive processing that occurs in two distinct modes. In the summary scanning mode, the stimulus is scanned cumulatively which gives rise to a static cognitive representation. In Langacker’s terms, atemporal relations (encoded by adpositions, adjectives, adverbs, infinitives and participles) fall into this cate gory. It is important to emphasise that ‘atemporal’ does not mean that the linguistic expression is prohibited from making reference to the domain of TIME. On the contrary, many linguistic expressions that Langacker characterises as atemporal relations evoke the domain of TIME. Instead, the term ‘atemporal’ can be thought of as equivalent to static in time. Consider the examples in (12).

In (12a) the adjective late evokes the domain of TIME, as does the adverb now in (12b). However, neither of these expressions evokes a PROCESS. Instead, they construe time in terms of a property (12a) or a point (12b), both of which are static.

 In the sequential scanning mode, on the other hand, the stimulus is scanned sequentially. Crucially, no two subparts of the resulting cognitive representation are the same, which gives rise to the cognitive representation with the status of a process. This scanning mode is evoked by temporal relations, which Langacker therefore calls PROCESSES. This is how Langacker characterises finite verb forms. As we have seen, language users (or conceptualisers) are not at the mercy of objective reality in terms of how they describe scenes using language. While objective reality exists, speakers have choices over how they decide to portray this reality in linguistic terms. In other words, summary versus sequential scanning is a matter of construal, although some situations lend themselves more readily to one type of construal than the other. Consider the examples in (13).

Example (13a) construes the scene as a PROCESS, and thus employs sequential scanning. In this example, destroyed is conceived as a dynamic PROCESS that is carried out in a certain manner, expressed by the adverb secretively. In contrast, (13b) construes the scene as a STATE, and thus employs summary scanning. Here, destruction is conceived as a THING that has the property expressed by the predicative adjective secretive.

اخر الاخبار

اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة

مدينة الفردوس تنظم برنامجًا ترفيهيًّا لأكثر من 260 يتيمًا من مؤسسة الفضل

العتبة العباسية المقدسة تطلق مسابقة ثقافية لطلبة جامعتي الكفيل والعميد

المجمع العلمي للقرآن الكريم يقيم محطات لتعليم القراءة الصحيحة في محافظة بابل

قسم الشؤون الفكرية ينظم دورة عن إعداد العروض التقديمية لطلبة المدارس في ذي قار

المزيد

الآخبار الصحية

للطاقة وحماية القلب.. ما "التوقيت الذهبي" لأكل المكسرات؟

دراسة تكشف فائدة القيلولة لمدة 45 دقيقة

اختيار الزبادي الأنسب.. قرار يحدد مسار صحتك

هل يعدّ الصيام المتقطع حلا سحريا لخسارة الوزن؟.. دراسة تجيب

المزيد

الآخبار التكنلوجية

"علي بابا" تكشف عن نموذج جديد للذكاء الاصطناعي

اختراق علمي جديد.. استشعار ضوئي يرصد "دلالات السرطان"

وكالة الإمارات للفضاء تعلن تمديد مهمة "مسبار الأمل" حتى 2028

ظاهرة مذهلة .. شهدها 2 بالمئة من سكان العالم فقط

المزيد

مواضيع ذات صلة

Nominal versus relational predications

Abstractions

Expansibility and contractibility versus replicability

Homogeneity versus heterogeneity

Bounding

Nominal predications: nouns

Word classes: linguistic categorisation

Cognitive Grammar: word classes

The conceptual basis of grammar

Categorisation and polysemy in grammar: the network conception

Force-dynamics

Attention