Concepts of Space, Time and Motion in Contemporary Czech
Abstract
29
Full text
Concepts of Space, Time and Motion in Contemporary Czech1 Lucie Saicová Římalová ABSTRACT: Space, time and motion are crucial concepts in human thinking. They tend to be expressed differently in different languages and this can present difficulties for language learners. This paper summarises the basic linguistic means of expressing time, space and motion in contemporary Czech and attempts to systematise the existing linguistic research related to these topics. The analysis focuses on deictic, lexical (e.g. verbs of motion) and phrasal units and on selected grammatical categories (especially time, aspect and case) and points out specific features of a“Czech” understanding of the concepts as revealed by the given linguistic expressions. In Czech utterances, the concepts are usually interconnected, with several means connected with the concepts often appearing simultaneously. The “Czech” conceptualisation of space, time and motion is complex, but it is nevertheless organised in various ways (for example, along selected oppositions, metaphors or image schemas, using aspecific categorisation of motion in verbs of motion). Furthermore, space and motion often function as asource domain for metaphors of more abstract concepts. It is suggested that this overview could provide some background for research into the use of Czech as anon-native language. KEY WORDS: Czech language, linguistic worldview, motion, space, time 1. INTRODUCTION Space, time and motion are crucial concepts in human thinking; they are also complex and mutually interwoven. Talmy (2017, p.60) states that time and space are both “conceptual constructs understood as matrices that are ‘straight’, evenly distributed, continuous, indefinitely extensive, and stationary.” In both cases, certain parts can be seen as “bounded off” and both time and space “can be conceptualised either as smooth or comprised of adjacent points” (ibid.). Unlike space, time contains aspecific and, according to Talmy, unique and probably axiomatic feature of progression (with the moment “now” having aprominent status) and exhibits “laterness” bias (ibid., p.61). Motion is aproperty of both space and time (“spacetime”; ibid., p.62) and the opposition of stationary versus moving also seems to be important (ibid.). Some authors (e.g. Sheets-Johnston, 1999) believe that motion may be the primary category and that other conceptualisations (such as that of time) may be derived from it. In research, space is often seen from the point of view of geometry, but some authors (e.g. Feist, 2010) point out that the linguistic conceptualisation of space should 1 This research was supported by the project PROGRES Q10, Language in Changes of Time, Space, Culture. OPEN ACCESS
30 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY be described using not only geometrical but also “functional” attributes (the typical uses and functions of objects) and “qualitative physics” (information about spatial configuration such as the existence of support). Languages typically use spatial vocabulary as the source for temporal vocabulary (Sweetser & Gaby, 2017a, p.626), and time is often conceptualised using metaphors based on space or motion (e.g.moving time and moving ego metaphors, future is right or future is below metaphors; e.g. ibid.), but it would be an oversimplification to see the conceptualisation of time as simply parallel to that of space or motion as it has its own specific features. Motion has been described as “acomplex domain with dynamic and variable schematic components” (Pourcel, 2010, p.417), and which covers not only figures moving along apath but also other components that are “situated within ideational contexts, comprising cultural cognitive models, ideologies, emotions, symbolisms, as well as expectations concerning motion properties and contextual embedding” (ibid., p.419). All the engaged components are typically complex and can be used as criteria for various typologies of motion. Although the human understanding of time, space and motion is based on human experience and is to some extent embodied, languages differ in the way they express that understanding. In this paper, Idiscuss the basic linguistic means of denoting space, time and motion in contemporary Czech. Ifocus on two goals: (a) to analyse what Czech (mainly) linguistic expressions reveal about the “Czech” understanding and conceptualisation2 of these concepts; and (b) to summarise existing research on the Czech language within this field. In both cases, Iwill be discussing Czech as afirst language, but Ibelieve that the paper could provide some background for analysis of Czech as asecond or foreign language or for acomparative analysis of Czech and other languages. Iam aware that my analysis describes certain features of Czech without explicitly stating what is unique in this language or how Czech language differs from other languages (e.g. other Slavic languages). Such acomparison would definitely be interesting but it would demand amuch larger space, because each language may have its own specific features and it would be necessary to look at the data from many different perspectives. It is apparent that there is yet to be acomprehensive summary of the topic in Czech and amore complex comparative analysis of Czech and other languages. In pursuing the first goal, Imostly use the cognitive approach to language, including the theory of the linguistic worldview or linguistic picture of the world (e.g. Vaňková, Nebeská, Saicová Římalová & Šlédrová, 2005; Bartmiński, 2009). In accordance with this approach, Isee meaning as holistic, without strict boundaries between linguistic and encyclopaedic meanings, nor between various types of meanings such as lexical, grammatical or pragmatic. Ipay special attention to salient oppositions and metaphors that seem to point towards some important principles that organise our understanding of the concepts under analysis. The cognitive approach has already 2 Conceptualisation is a“conventionalised part of conceptual content … [which] … reflects the ways experiencers construe the scene in language, gestures and behaviour” (Lewandowska-Tomasczyk, 2016, p. 9). OPEN ACCESS
LUcIE SAIcOVá ŘímALOVá 31 proven its usefulness in second or foreign language teaching or learning. For example, it can make explanations of abstract categories of case or aspect easier to understand (cf. explanation of case in Czech in Janda & Clancy, 2006, or explanation of aspect and other verbal categories in Slavic languages in Janda 2006, 2015). In summarising the Czech research to date, Iintend to show that there is along tradition of Czech functional-structural linguistic research and that this is frequently compatible with the contemporary cognitive approach (see studies by Němec, Novák, Konečná, Nebeský, Skalička, and others, listed in the bibliography at the end of this paper). Iam aware that both my overview of linguistic means connected with space, time and motion in Czech and my interpretation of the existing research are subjective and, because of the complexity of the analysed concepts and the limited length of this paper, can capture only the most important aspects of this topic. 2. SPACE, TIME AND MOTION IN CONTEMPORARY CZECH LANGUAGE There are abundant linguistic means connected with the concepts of space, time and motion in Czech. Many are also common to other languages, but Czech exhibits some specific features. There are usually several linguistic means connected with time and space (less frequently with motion) in asingle utterance. Users of the Czech language can express these concepts using arange of means, such as lexical expressions, syntactic constructions, morphemes, grammatical categories, and nonverbal means, or combinations of these. Ihave structured the continuum into several (partially overlapping) subgroups: deictic (see 2.1) and lexical and other means (words, morphemes, phrases) related to the three concepts (see 2.2), and selected verbal and nominal grammatical categories (especially aspect, time, case; see 2.3). 2.1 DEIXIS It is usual to distinguish means with adeictic function from those with areferential function, although there is no strict boundary between the two. Within deixis, spatial deixis and temporal deixis are both important in Czech. There are specialised linguistic means for the spatial and temporal deictic functions, typically pronouns (e.g. ten ‘the’, tento, ‘this’, tamten, ‘that’) and deictic adverbials (tady, zde both meaning ‘here’, tam ‘there’, nyní, teď both meaning ‘now’). But there may also be spatial and temporal deictic components in the meaning of other parts of speech, such as words that imply some orientation point (the position of the speaker or the addressee or some other entity), for example, vlevo ‘left’, vpravo ‘right’ (see 2.2) or prepositions such as před ‘in front of’, za ‘behind’ (see below).3 The deictic system also overlaps with grammar, for 3 The temporal expressions dnes ‘today’, zítra ‘tomorrow’, včera ‘yesterday’ are primarily oriented towards the moment of the utterance and the speaker’s position in time. OPEN ACCESS
32 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY example in the verbal category of tense (see 2.3). Because of the blurred boundaries of deixis, deictic phenomena are studied from several perspectives in Czech linguistics: in pragmatics (e.g. Hirschová, 2013); in grammatical studies (the various studies of pronouns and their function); and in cognitive linguistics (the analysis of selected oppositions or spatial orientation; see below). In an utterance, deixis (including linguistic means which have deictic components in their meaning) is typically organised from adeictic centre.4 This deictic centre is usually represented by the speaker, but other deictic centres are also possible (e.g. the perspectives of the addressee or some depicted entity, such as acharacter in astory or an entity about which the speaker is speaking). Different perspectives can be easily observed in the use of expressions such as vlevo ‘left’ or vpravo ‘rightʼ (for example, zahnu doleva ‘Iwill turn leftʼ is constructed from the perspective of the speaker; je na snímku vlevo ‘(somebody) is on the left in the photo’ constructs the scene typically from the perspective of the observer; bolí ho čtyřka vlevo dole ‘his forth tooth down left is aching’ constructs the position of the tooth from the perspective of its “owner” etc.). It is important to note that the notions of perspective and perspectival centre can also be applied to more complex phenomena: the whole utterance or text and its content (including not only the spatial and temporal perspective, but also what is or is not said, the way the content is organised, what linguistic means are used, and so on) can be seen from acertain perspective constructed from achosen perspectival centre or even several centres. Atypical perspectival centre is that of anarrator (the speaker), but other types (the addressee, achosen character, etc.) are also possible. Perspective can appear in all genres, in any type of text, and can influence the construction of space, time and motion in the text. In the Czech context, this theory was developed by Macurová (1983) as part of the theory of text and style. There are several spatial deictic (sub)systems in Czech. The basic subsystem is typically oriented towards adeictic centre represented by the speaker, the addressee, or some other entity, and is based on the opposition proximity versus distance (see below). This subsystem seems to lack inherent linear orientation, that is, the same expression can be used to point to an entity situated in any direction from the deictic centre (e.g. the speaker can use tam ‘thereʼ to point horizontally, upwards, downwards etc.). There is also asubsystem that uses acertain inner orientation of some entities (i.e. those that are seen as having some front-back, bottom-up, left-right orientation, e.g. před domem ‘in front of ahouse’ is typically in front of that part of the house where the front entrance is situated). The deixis can then be oriented towards selected qualities of the given entity (e.g. something can be in front of, or on the left of, something else). Hirschová (2013, p.72) states that this subsystem is typically of abinary nature. The so-called absolute subsystem that uses orientation towards, for example, points of the compass, can also appear, but usually only in specific contexts (e.g. communication based on the orientation of amap). In common with many other languages, the system of temporal deixis in Czech tends to show alinear orientation from the past, through “now”, to the future (e.g.Talmy, 4 Some authors distinguish the deictic centre (origo) from the point of reference (cf.Hirschová, 2013); the term viewpoint is also used (e.g. Vandelanotte, 2017). OPEN ACCESS
LUcIE SAIcOVá ŘímALOVá 33 2017). Like spatial deixis, temporal deixis has several subsystems (see also 2.3): events can be seen as oriented towards the moment of the utterance, but also towards some other event; they can also form asequence. The moment of “now” seems to be aprominent moment which typically coincides with the moment of the utterance, but Czech also allows for various shifts in usage (e.g. the “now” can be conceptualised more broadly, including non-actual uses etc., e.g. teď si čtu ‘Iam reading nowʼ, teď máme 21.století ‘it is the 21st century (now)’, absolvoval ateď pracuje vkanceláři ‘he has graduated and works in an office (now)ʼ; see 2.3 as well). In Czech, the repertoire of means used for temporal deixis oriented towards the past seems to be richer than that which points towards the future. The following organising principles (typically in the form of oppositions) are important for a“Czech” understanding of deixis: (a) The opposition proximal (closer to the deictic centre) versus distant (further away from the deictic centre) is the basic opposition in Czech spatial and temporal deixis (cf. zde ‘here’ versus tam ‘there’, or nyní ‘now’ versus tehdy ‘then, pointing towards the past’). Some deictic means are considered neutral in relation to the proximal-distant opposition (e.g. ten ‘it, that’5 for spatial deixis; e.g. Hirschová, 2013, p.69). (b) There is arelation between the opposition proximal to the speaker versus distant from the speaker and another important opposition, we (our) versus they, the others (not our). In this opposition, the proximal pole is related to the speaker, to something that is one’s own or similar to the speaker. The distant pole is associated with entities that are not connected with the speaker or that are different from them. The proximal pole (we, our) is typically positively evaluated; the distant pole (they) is associated with something foreign and is often negatively evaluated.6 The proximal-distant opposition thus exhibits an egocentric (me-first, cf. Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) orientation: that which is closer to the speaker is considered better. (c) The opposition animate versus inanimate (and in some cases person versus not-person, e.g. in some uses of pronouns such as kdo ‘who’ versus co ‘what’) is also important. The opposition appears (in aslightly varied and more grammaticalised way) in morphology (e.g. grammatical gender, see 2.3) and syntax (e.g. different congruence for masculine animate and inanimate subjects). (d) Various originally spatial oppositions tend to be connected with evaluation, often polarised into positive versus negative (cf. metaphors such as good is up or bad is down, and evaluation of right and left; see 2.2), which is also typical of many other languages. The basic oppositions (e.g. proximal versus distant, we versus they) 5 Ten can point to both animate and inanimate entities. 6 Cf. the opposition human beings versus animals. For example, there tend to be specific expressions for human and animal body parts or activities in Czech (e.g. ústa, pusa ‘mouth’ of human beings; tlama, huba for animals; jíst ‘to eat’ for humans, žrát for animals). When we use the originally animal expression (e.g. huba or žrát) about humans, they usually acquire negative connotations. (For amore detailed analysis in Polish, see Pajdzińska, 2007.) OPEN ACCESS
34 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY can extend to other fields, such as pragmatics (e.g. social distance in politeness), and can develop into complex evaluative systems in discourse. (For an analysis of the opposition we–they in Czech and German newspapers, see Samek, 2016.) 2.2 LEXIcAL AND OTHEr EXPONENTS OF TImE, SPAcE AND mOTION Space, time and motion can be expressed by many lexical means, lexemes, idioms and constructions, as we can see in the long entries in thesauruses and dictionaries of synonyms. For example, the thesaurus by Klégr (2007) contains tens of pages of lexical expressions for space, size, shape, movement and time. This type of data has been researched within the cognitive theory of the linguistic worldview (e.g. Bartmiński, 2009) and linguistic picture of the world (e.g. Vaňková et al., 2005). In the Czech context, research has tended to focus on metaphors and (more recently) on profiles of the three concepts. Analysis of spatial dimensions shows that words denoting time, space and motion are typically polysemous and that there may be several conceptualisations connected with each of them (cf. Linde-Usiekniewicz, 2000, for Polish; Šlédrová, 2000, 2001, for Czech). For example, hluboký ‘deep’ can refer to several different physical situations, such as hluboký sníh ‘deep snow’, referring to athick layer of snow, hluboká díra ‘deep hole’, referring to ahollow space measured from the top to the bottom, or hluboké kořeny ‘deep roots’, referring to the parts of aplant that go deep into the soil (Grzegorczykowa, 2001, p.14). There are also numerous metaphorical extensions that use hluboký (e.g. hluboký spánek ‘deep, sound sleep’, hluboký hlas ‘deep, low voice’, hluboký smutek ‘deep sadness’, hluboká krize ‘deep crisis’). Within the Czech conceptualisation of space, the following principles (oppositions) are important: (a) left–right orientation; (b) up–down orientation; and (c) front– back orientation (e.g. in front of the speaker or other entity— behind the speaker or other entity). In some cases, the opposition (d) inside–outside (or the related oppositions deep–shallow or surface–core) are also salient. All three basic oppositions (left–right, up–down, front–back) apply not only to the conceptualisation of space, but also to various non-literal or metaphorical spheres and frequently have evaluative connotations. One pole (typically right, up, front) tends to be evaluated positively and the other (typically left, down, back) negatively. Similar evaluative connotations appear in other European and Indo-European languages. For example, van Leeuwen-Turnovcová (1990, pp.76–125) has studied the opposition left versus right in European culture and has demonstrated that the right side is typically associated with something good (‘right’, ‘organised’, etc.) and the left tends to be evaluated negatively.7 The opposition up versus down appears, for example, in the metaphors up is good, down is bad, which can be found in many languages, includ7 Rechts is geben, gerade, vorne/vorgeordnet, stark/tapfer, tauglich, positive werte, ordnungsgemäss); link(s) is gewinn, ungerade, nachgeordnet/unten, schwach/schlaff, mangelhaft, negative werte, ordnungswirdig, vom guten ruf, alt (van Leeuwen-Turnovcová, 1990, pp.76–125). OPEN ACCESS
LUcIE SAIcOVá ŘímALOVá 35 ing Czech.8 The opposition front versus back is often associated either with something that is visible or better (typically front), or with something hidden, not right or bad (typically back). In some cases, the opposite evaluation is possible: the front or visible part may be seen as a(superficial) surface, while the rear or invisible (or perhaps more precisely inner) part is conceptualised as the real but hidden quality.9 As in many other languages, time in Czech is often referred to using spatial vocabulary, although some authors point out that the space-time relationship is probably more complex than it is often seen to be (e.g. Konečná, 1974; Sweetser & Gaby, 2017a). Both of the basic metaphors of time, moving time and moving ego (e.g. Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Evans, 2004), appear in Czech (e.g. blíží se prázdniny ‘holidays are coming’; blížíme se ke konci semestru ‘we are approaching the end of the semester’). Time in Czech can be conceptualised as either linear (developing from the past, through “now”, to the future) or cyclic (the cycle of the seasons of ayear; cf. Svašková, 2014). The linear conceptualisation seems the more dominant. The front–back and left–right oppositions (or axes) mentioned above can also apply to the concept of time. The future is typically situated (metaphorically) in front of the subject, while the past is behind. Co-speech gestures by Czech speakers also indicate (cf. Saicová Římalová, 2017) that the future can be towards the right and the past towards the left.10 In sequences of events, the more recent event is typically placed on the right of its predecessor, as we see in various lists or time axes of events or iconic verbal expressions where the order of expressions corresponds to the order of events (e.g. absolvoval univerzitu aodstěhoval se do Brna ‘he graduated from university and moved to Brno’, where the first event mentioned is likely to have happened first, followed by the second event mentioned). In some cases, sequences of events can be organised along the up–down opposition (axis). The more recent (newer) event generally used to be at the bottom, below the previous events, possibly for technical reasons related to writing (such as in chronicles where the newest event is added at the end or bottom). But in some cases (and probably more recently), the events may be organised in the reverse order (cf. personal CVs or internet news pages, where the most recent work experience or an event is placed at the top). In contemporary Czech, spatial and temporal meanings can be expressed not only by autosemantic lexical units, but also by so-called synsemantic units (e.g. prepositions) or morphemes (e.g. prefixes). Analysis of the semantics of Czech prepositions has mostly been conducted using the functional-structural approach and has focused 8 Cf. expressions such as vysoce postavený manažer ‘amanager with ahigh status’, nízké úmysly ‘low (bad) intentions’, zvednout někomu náladu ‘to cheer someone up’, být skleslý ‘to be depressed’, propadnout se do deprese ‘to fall into depression’. 9 Cf. expressions where the facial expression, asmile for example, is seen as the front showing something, while the real emotions, in the heart, may represent something different: cf. Mácha’s na tváři lehký smích, hluboký vsrdci žal ‘alight smile on the face, deep sorrow in the heart’. 10 The evidence from linguistic and non-linguistic sources can differ in the way they conceptualise time; cf. Sweetser & Gaby (2017b). OPEN ACCESS
36 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY predominantly on so-called primary prepositions and their “physical” (especially spatial) meanings. Various similarities and differences between prepositions with spatial and temporal meanings have also been observed. Konečná (1974, p.262) points out that primary prepositions in Czech are typically polysemous and that their meaning always contains aspatial component. Prefixes, apart from expressing various spatial and temporal meanings like those of prepositions, are seen as another organising principle in Czech vocabulary: words with the same prefix may be regarded as belonging to one general group (cf. Lehoučková, 2010; for amore abstract theory see Dokulil, 1962). Prefixes and suffixes may also participate in the expression of aspect or aktionsart (see 2.3). In Czech utterances, the meanings of prepositions (especially primary prepositions), cases (see 2.3) and prefixes are interconnected. For example, Hirschová (1977) sees prefixes and prepositions expressing dynamic spatial meanings (e.g. odstoupit od okna ‘to step away from the window’, vejít do domu ‘to go into the house’) as means that cooperate (in various ways) in the expression of the orientation of linear motion. The authors of Mluvnice češtiny 2 (Komárek, Kořenský, Petr & Veselková, 1986) suggest that prepositions modify or specify general meanings of cases expressed by the connected nouns. Czech constructions often combine prepositions, prefixes and cases with similar meanings (e.g. dojít do lesa ‘to go as far as into the woods’, odejít od rodičů ‘to leave the parents in order to live somewhere else’, where the prefixes and prepositions have asimilar meaning and form, and the noun in the genitive form expresses the goal or the starting point; or vejít do domu ‘to go into the house’, přijít kdomu ‘to come to the house’, where the prefixes and prepositions have asimilar meaning but adifferent form). Some of the results of functional-structural research can also be of interest in cognitively based analysis, such as descriptions of meanings organised along the line of contrasts or oppositions. For example, Konečná (1974) describes the spatial, temporal and other abstract meanings of prepositions using Hjelmslev’s triad of phases (approaching— the stable phase— leaving, becoming distant) and suggests the following three phases: the initial phase (předobjektová ‘before the object’); the object phase (objektová); the final phase (postobjektová ‘after the object’).11 Hirschová (1977) uses the triad starting point— environment (or the middle member)— goal in her analysis of spatial meanings of prefixes and prepositions. In another study (Konečná in Komárek et al., 1986, p.202), Konečná uses the following oppositions to describe spatial and temporal meanings of primary prepositions: static versus dynamic; oriented versus not oriented; in contact versus without contact. The first opposition can be illustrated by examples such as (něco) je na stole ‘(something) is on the table’ versus položit (něco) na stůl ‘to place (something) on the table’, the second by (něco) je před stolem ‘(something) is in front of the table’ versus (něco) je ustolu ‘(something) is by the table’, and the third by (něco) je na stole ‘(something) is on the table’ versus (něco) je nad stolem ‘(something) is above the table’. 11 In relation to location, the expression je před mostem ‘(something) is in front of the bridge’ would represent the initial phase, je na mostě ‘(something) is on the bridge’ the object phase, and je za mostem ‘(something) is behind the bridge’ the final phase. OPEN ACCESS
LUcIE SAIcOVá ŘímALOVá 37 Motion can also be expressed in many ways. The extent of the repertoire depends on how we classify ‘motion’ (cf. Saicová Římalová, 2010, 2008): the category can cover both intentional and unintentional motion, the motion of whole entities or their parts, and so on. We can also distinguish various types of motion, such as vertical or horizontal motion12 or various manners of motion. Motion can be referred to by various word classes in contemporary Czech, but verbs seem to be the prominent category. Verbs denoting motion are important in many languages and have been the subject of much analysis. Talmy (e.g. 2000, esp. pp.213–288) has even proposed atypology of languages based on the way they express motion and scenes containing motion (cf. the well-known classification of satelliteframed and verb-framed languages; for asummary of the theory, see e.g. Martinková, 2018). Czech linguistics includes numerous classifications of verbs and predicates which denote motion. Daneš and Hlavsa (1981, pp.88–119) suggest that verbs denoting motion can function as predicates which refer, for example, to situations when one moves oneself from one place to another (e.g. jít ‘to go on foot’), when one changes one’s position (e.g. postavit se ‘to stand up’), or when one manipulates something (e.g. nést ‘to carry’). Filipec (Filipec & Čermák, 1985, pp.155–163) analyses alarge group of verbs denoting motion using eight dimensions: the environment of the movement, subject, means, manner, direction, goal, the object of the movement, and time. Grepl and Karlík (1998, pp.113–121; translated by the author) define two basic groups: verbs (predicators) that refer to situations when “something or somebody moves or does not move from one place to another”, and verbs (predicators) that refer to situations when “somebody or something causes somebody or something to move from one place to another”. They observe that some verbs (predicators) can imply, for example, the starting point of the motion (e.g odejít ‘to leave’), the direction or the purpose (e.g. vstoupit ‘to enter’), or the path (e.g. prolézt ‘to crawl through’). Verbs denoting motion are also frequently used in non-literal (metaphorical) meanings.13 They can undergo grammaticalisation (e.g. Majsak, 2005) and can express socalled fictive motion (e.g. Evans, 2004). In Czech, many of the verbs are extensively polysemous. Ibelieve that the image schema of the path (or “the metaphor of the journey” or “the source-path-goal schema”; cf. Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Johnson, 1987; Lakoff, 1987) is auseful tool for describing the behaviour of verbs denoting motion in Czech. We can use the basic components of the image schema (e.g. the starting point, the goal, the path and its shape, the manner of movement, the quality of the environment in which the movement takes place, etc.) to capture the way the given verb (and the 12 Linguistic analysis seems to pay more attention to horizontal motion than to vertical motion. See e.g. Sweetser & Gaby (2017a). 13 For example, Collitz (1931, pp.7–11) long ago noted that “most verbs of motion, when used figuratively, can acquire the signification of propriety, fitness, suitability, or related meanings” and divided figurative meanings into three basic groups: (a) broadly defined emotions, positive and negative; (b) propriety and impropriety including meanings such as fitness, suitability, behaviour, similarity, relationship, custom or success; (c) intellectuality, cleverness, sharpness and the reverse. OPEN ACCESS
44 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY build upon various metaphorical mappings and propose networks of interconnected meanings (e.g. Janda & Clancy, 2006). 3. CONCLUSION There is no doubt that space, time and motion are important concepts in the Czech linguistic picture of the world. The Czech language offers awhole continuum of means of various types and different levels of abstraction which can refer to these concepts, such as morphemes, lexemes, constructions and grammatical categories. In Czech utterances, several means connected with space, time and motion can (and often do) appear together. Some words participate in the construction of the scene and its temporal, spatial or motional aspects, but some grammatical categories are also related to time (e.g. verbal tense and aspect) or space (e.g. some nominal cases). The three concepts therefore tend to be interconnected, and their linguistic expression can be complex. The Czech conceptualisation of space, time and motion may be convoluted, but it is nevertheless organised in various ways: for example, along selected oppositions (such as proximal–distant, left–right, up–down, front–back, directed towards agoal— not directed towards agoal, not repeated— repeated— repeated as ahabit, and many others) or with the help of figuration, especially metaphors or image schemas (metaphors such as moving time, moving ego, image schema of the path, and many others). Time is very often conceptualised metaphorically. Space and motion often function as asource domain for metaphors of more abstract concepts. Some of the oppositions or metaphors discussed in this paper also appear in many other languages, but some cases are typically Czech. For example, the group of determinate–indeterminate verbs of motion (although the group also exists in other Slavic languages) exhibits several specific features, such as the categorisation of motion into the jít and jet types, and the specific and rich polysemy of the members. Icould only touch on some topics that Iconsider important in this paper. There are many potential topics and questions that would be worth amore detailed investigation. There is no comprehensive cognitively oriented analysis of the conceptualization of time, space and motion in Czech yet. Further research in various partial topics would be undoubtedly fruitful as well (e.g. the analysis of the relationship between verbal and non-verbal means of expression; idioms and various linguistically fixated constructions; the conceptualization of time, space and motion in specific groups of speakers or in specific genres). The comparison of Czech and other languages (e.g. other Slavic languages) would be interesting as well. Comparative analyses or analyses of Czech produced by non-native speakers might lead to useful applications in the teaching methodology of Czech as asecond language. They could, for example, help to indicate those moments that might be difficult for learners with aparticular first dominant meaning, but other meanings and contextual modifications (e.g. via prepositions, see above) are also possible. OPEN ACCESS
LUcIE SAIcOVá ŘímALOVá 45 language, because the complex nature of the linguistic expression of space, time and motion in Czech, the richness of the linguistic means available for this purpose, and the specific features of the Czech linguistic picture of space, time and motion might all present quite achallenge to non-native speakers of Czech. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bartmiński, J. (2009). Aspects of cognitive ethnolinguistics. Sheffield, Oakville: Equinox. Bláha, O. (2008). Vyjadřování budoucnosti vsoučasné češtině (se zřetelem kostatním slovanským jazykům). Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého vOlomouci. Collitz, K.H. (1931). Verbs of motion in their semantic divergence. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Society of America & University of Pennsylvania. Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Danaher, D. (2003). The semantics and discourse functions of habitual-iterative verbs in contemporary Czech. München: LINCOM Europa. Daneš, F., & Hlavsa, Z., et al. (1981). Větné vzorce včeštině. Praha: Academia. Dickey, S.M. (2000). Parameters of Slavic aspect: Acognitive approach. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Dokulil, M. (1962). Tvoření slov včeštině I.Praha: Nakladatelství Československé akademie věd. Evans, V. (2004). The structure of time: Language, meaning and temporal cognition. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Feist, M.I. (2010). Inside in and on: Typological and psycholinguistic perspectives. In V.Evans & P.Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition and space: The state of art and new directions (pp.95–114). London, Oakville: Equinox. Filipec, J., & Čermák, F. (1985). Česká lexikologie. Praha: Academia. Grepl, M., & Karlík, P. (1998). Skladba češtiny. Olomouc: Votobia. Grzegorczykowa, R. (2001). Ozkoumání rozdílů vjazykových obrazech světa: Obraz psychiky člověka vprostorových metaforách. In I.Vaňková (Ed.), Obraz světa vjazyce (pp.5–18). Praha: Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy. Hirschová, M. (1977). Vzájemné vztahy předpon apředložek ve vazbách sprostorovým významem: Na materiálu českého jazyka. Slovo aslovesnost, 38(2), 103–111. Hirschová, M. (2013). Pragmatika včeštině. Praha: Karolinum. Chromý, J. (2014). The impact of tense on the interpretation of bi-aspectual verbs in Czech. Studie zaplikované lingvistiky, 5(2), 87–97. Janda, L. (2006). Ametaphor for aspect in Slavic. Henrik Birnbaum in Memoriam. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, 44(3), 249–260. Available from http://www.unc.edu/ depts/slavdept/lajanda/mypubs.html. Janda, L. (2015). Tense, aspect, mood. In E.Dąbrowska & D.Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 616–634). Berlin, Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton. Janda, L., & Clancy, S. (2006). The case book for Czech. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers. Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. Chicago, IL, London: The University of Chicago Press. Klégr, A. (2007). Tezaurus jazyka českého. Praha: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny. Komárek, M., Kořenský, J., Petr, J., & Veselková,J. (Eds.). (1986). Mluvnice češtiny 2. Praha: Academia. Konečná, D. (1974). Ovýznamech českých pravých předložek. Slovo aslovesnost, 35(4), 261–264. Konečná, D., & Nebeský, L. (1970). Jeden záznam pádových významů současné češtiny. Slovo aslovesnost, 31(3), 223–226. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL, London: The University of Chicago Press. OPEN ACCESS
46 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. van Leeuwen-Turnovcová, J. (1990). Rechts und Links in Europa: Ein Beitrag zur Semantik und Symbolik der Geschlechterpolarität. Berlin, Weisbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Lehoučková, Z. (2010). Slovesná prefixace ve světle Langackerovy kognitivní gramatiky. Slovo aslovesnost, 71(4), 340–349. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (2016). Introducing conceptualizations of time. In B.Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), Conceptualizations of time (pp. 9–21). Amsterdam, Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Linde-Usiekniewicz, J. (2000). Określenia wymiarów wjęzyku polskim. Warszawa: Wydział Polonistyky, Uniwersytet Warszawski. Macurová, A. (1983). Ztvárnění komunikačních faktorů vjazykových projevech. Praha: Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy. Majsak, T.A. (2005). Tipologija grammatikalizacii konstrukcij sglagolami dviženija iglagolami pozicii. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskich kultur. Martinková, M. (2018). Ktzv.sémantické typologii jazyků: Co česká slovesa pohybu mohou vypovídat oangličtině ašpanělštině. Studie zaplikované lingvistiky, 9(2), 37–53. Mrhačová, E. (1993). Korelativní slovesa pohybu. Ostrava: Sfinga. Němec, I. (1956). Kategorie determinovanosti aindeterminovanosti jako základ slovanské kategorie vidu. Slavica, 25(4), 496–534. Němec, I. (1958). Genese slovanského systému vidového. Praha:Nakladatelství Československé akademie věd. Nesset, T. (2000). Iconicity and prototypes: Anew perspective on Russian verbs of motion. Scando-Slavica, 46, 105–119. Novák, P. (1974/2010a). Kvěcné platnosti pádů, jejich tzv.celostnímu (obecnému) významu alokalismu. In P.Novák, Lingvistika ajazyková realita: Výbor zdíla (pp. 109–115). Praha: Akropolis. Novák, P. (1974/2010b). Klokalistickému pojetí významu pádů. In P.Novák, Lingvistika ajazyková realita: Výbor zdíla (pp. 116–120). Praha: Akropolis. Pajdzińska, A. (2007). Kategorie strukturující jazykový obraz světa: antropocentrismus aopozice „vlastní”— „cizí”. In L.Saicová Římalová (Ed.), Čítanka textů zkognitivní lingvistiky II (pp. 27–44). Praha: Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy. Panevová, J. (2016). Valence vgramatice, valence ve slovníku. In K.Skwarska & E.Kaczmarska (Eds.), Výzkum slovesné valence ve slovanských zemích (pp. 13–26). Praha: Slovanský ústav Akademie věd ČR. Pourcel, S. (2010). Motion: Aconceptual typology. In V.Evans & P.Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition and space: The state of art and new directions (pp. 95–114). London, Oakville: Equinox. Saicová Římalová, L. (2008). Oruchu człowieka. In R.Grzegorczykowa & K.Waszakowa (Eds.), Pojęcie— słowo— tekst (pp. 27–44). Warszawa: WUW. Saicová Římalová, L. (2009a). Ovýznamech sloves typu jít atypu chodit včeštině. Bohemistyka, 9(3), 161–176. Saicová Římalová, L. (2009b). Představová schémata apopis jazyka (schéma cesty včeštině). Jazykovědné actuality, 46, 12–20. Saicová Římalová, L. (2010). Vybraná slovesa pohybu včeštině: Studie zkognitivní lingvistiky. Praha: Karolinum Saicová Římalová, L. (2016). Valence českých sloves pohybu pohledem kognitivní lingvistiky. In K.Skwarska & E.Kaczmarska (Eds.), Výzkum slovesné valence ve slovanských zemích (pp. 247–256). Praha: Slovanský ústav Akademie věd ČR. Saicová Římalová, L. (2017). Gesta ajazyk vědy: Kneverbální komunikaci doprovázející odborné projevy česky hovořících vědců. In M.Stluka & M.Škrabal (Eds.), Liška ačban: Sborník příspěvků k70.narozeninám prof. Karla Kučery (pp. 110–116). Praha: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny. Saicová Římalová, L. (2018). Is there such athing as nonverbal valency? Prace Filologiczne, 72, 321–331. OPEN ACCESS
LUcIE SAIcOVá ŘímALOVá 47 Samek, T. (2016). Tahle země je naše: Český aněmecký veřejný prostor vdeiktické perspektivě. Pardubice: Univerzita Pardubice. Sheets-Johnstone, M. (1999). The primacy of movement. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Skalička, V. (1950). Poznámky ktheorii pádů. Slovo aslovesnost, 12(3-4), 134–152. Starý, Z. (2017). Biaspectuals revisited. Studie zaplikované lingvistiky, 8(1), 111–123. Starý Kořánová, I. (2019). Vidová kolokabilita. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Praha: Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy. Svašková, J. (2014). Cykličnost alinearita času včeském jazykovém obrazu světa. Nepublikovaná diplomová práce. Praha: Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy. Sweetser, E., & Gaby, A. (2017a). Linguistic Patterns of Space and Time Vocabulary. In B.Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 625–634). Cambridge, New York, NY, Melbourne, New Dehli, Singapore: Cambridge University Press. Sweetser, E., & Gaby, A. (2017b). Space-Time Mappings beyond Language. In B.Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 635–650). Cambridge, New York, NY, Melbourne, New Dehli, Singapore: Cambridge University Press. Šlédrová, J. (2000). Ksémantice českých rozměrových adjektiv. Slovo aslovesnost, 61(2), 112–137. Šlédrová, J. (2001). Mělký aplytký včeštině: Kam zmizely plytké talíře? In I.Vaňková (Ed.), Obraz světa vjazyce (pp. 78–87). Praha: Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward acognitive semantics II. Cambridge, MA: ABradford Book. Talmy, L. (2017). The targeting system of language. Cambridge, MA, London: The MIT Press. Vandelanotte, L. (2017). Viewpoint. In B.Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 157–171). Cambridge, New York, NY, Melbourne, New Dehli & Singapore: Cambridge University Press. Vaňková, I., Nebeská, I., Saicová Římalová,L., & Šlédrová, J. (2005). Co na srdci, to na jazyku: Kapitoly zkognitivní lingvistiky. Praha: Nakladatelství Karolinum. Vodrážková, V. (2016). Jazyková realizace konceptuální metafory život je cesta včeštině (se zaměřením na vzpomínkové texty). In L.Saicová Římalová & I.Vaňková (Eds.), Lidský život akaždodennost vjazyce (pp.51–60). Praha: Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy. Vodrážková, V. (2017). Schéma cesta včeské somatické frazeologii. In I.Vaňková, V.Vodrážková & R.Zbořilová (Eds.), Horizonty kognitivně-kulturní lingvistiky: schémata astereotypy vmluvených aznakových jazycích (pp. 19–27). Praha: Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy. Lucie Saicová Římalová | Institute of Czech Language and Theory of Communication, Faculty of Arts, Charles University <[email protected]> OPEN ACCESS