2.1 The prepositions considered

The prepositional expressions to be discussed in this work include through, all through, throughout, over (in its path sense), past, towards, and from–to. All of these have spatial as well as temporal uses, but they differ in their way of construing the path, their selection of the Landmark (e.g. whether it is container-like or point-like), and in the kind of search domain they establish (whether situated inside or outside the Landmark). There are also differences in the conceptual nature of the path the prepositions designate. The concise definitions of the (relevant) spatial meanings of the prepositions given below are based on Lindstromberg (Reference Lindstromberg2010).

The preposition through has, according to Lindstromberg (Reference Lindstromberg2010: 35; see also Zwarts Reference Zwarts2005), two central spatial meanings: (i) ‘into [the Landmark], then out the other end or side, such that part of a path is surrounded by a Landmark’, e.g. The pump moves the water through the filter and the aerator; and (ii) ‘along a path within the Landmark, without crossing its boundaries’, e.g. Fish move through the water by waving their fins back and forth. Throughout is related to through but means ‘everywhere in [the Landmark]’ or, in expressions of time, ‘continuously or continually from beginning to end’, stressing continuity or frequency of occurrence within a period of time (Lindstromberg Reference Lindstromberg2010: 130–131). Note that Talmy (Reference Talmy, Hickmann and Robert2007: 216): characterizes throughout as indicator of ‘dense dispersion with multiple Figures [Trajectors] as adjacent to or coincident with the Ground [Landmark]’. The preposition past describes a more or less straight path which comes close to a Landmark and then continues beyond it (for semantic illustrations with figures, see Lindstromberg Reference Lindstromberg2010). Over (in the sense relevant here; Lindstromberg Reference Lindstromberg2010: 111–112) profiles a path that lies outside a point-like Landmark (not coinciding with it), vertically higher than the Landmark, and extending beyond it in both directions. Towards designates a directional path oriented to a point-like Landmark which the path may never reach, while the combination from–to designates the terminal points of onset and offset of a path, respectively.

The status of throughout as a path preposition is somewhat debatable. For instance, according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/throughout), throughout has two spatial meanings: (i) ‘all the way from one end to the other of’ (i.e. a path meaning); and (ii) ‘in or to every part of’ (not a path meaning), while the Cambridge English online dictionary (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/throughout) mentions only meaning (ii). According to Lindstromberg (Reference Lindstromberg2010: 130), throughout is closely related to all across and all over, which likewise have the meaning ‘everywhere’. He also points out that in the expression throughout the ocean vs. all over ( ${\sim}$ all across) the ocean, only throughout includes the depth dimension in addition to distribution everywhere on the surface. In the typology of paths presented in Section 1, such expressions designate frame-setting paths: they are not traversed by a mover but occupied by something over their full length and then scanned through by the conceptualizer (e.g. There were mushrooms growing throughout the forest). In contrast, prototypical path prepositions such as through, past, or over (in its ‘path’ sense) are more compatible with meanings involving a path of locomotion (e.g. Jane jogged through the park), a path of growing extent (e.g. The workers dug a canal through the park) or a path of location (e.g. The jogging path goes through the park).

Since metaphorical time paths are often more similar to spatial frame-setting paths than to spatial paths of locomotion, I have included all these prepositions in the study. The discussion in Sections 3–6 concerns the spatialization of time, conceptualized as a path, as well as similarities and differences between advancement in space and time. The discussion is not confined to motion metaphors but is intended to cover a wider array of expressions where advancement in time is conceptualized in a way that has a counterpart in motion in space. Motion in space is of course itself not a purely spatial notion but a spatiotemporal one, since the spatial position of a moving entity changes with respect to time (for detailed accounts of the frames involved, see Moore Reference Moore2011). I pursue the space-time analogy to different kinds of path expressions, with particular focus on the construal of paths.

2.2 Conceptualizations and notions of time

Before proceeding to the analysis, a few important notions of time need to be defined. In the following analysis, ‘time’ is not a monolithic notion; the starting point is that a clause-level expression may include different conceptualizations of time interacting with each other. In addition to lexical resources, such as nouns, verbs, or prepositions, there are other kinds of linguistic systems designating temporal notions and conceptualizations of time, most obviously tense and aspect. Metaphorical expressions of time are in most cases based on lexical resources, such as verbs, nouns, and prepositions, while tense and aspect relate to a veridical (non-figurative) conceptualization of time.

I adopt the more specific term veridical time (VT, see Huumo Reference Huumo2017) for the conceptualization of time to which tense and aspect relate, and which, in Cognitive Grammar terms, hosts the processual profile of a clause-level predication. According to Cognitive Grammar, a clause-level predication designates a process, which is a relationship that unfolds in time and is tracked through time by a conceptualizer engaged in sequential scanning (for details, see e.g. Langacker Reference Langacker1987: 248–253). Sequential scanning refers to the act of scanning through the component relationships in the order of their temporal manifestation (Langacker Reference Langacker, Filipovic and Jaszczolt2012: 205). In other words, an event fills an extent of veridical time, which is then scanned through by a conceptualizer engaged in a linguistic usage event.

In Langacker’s writings (e.g. Reference Langacker1987, Reference Langacker1991a, Reference Langacker2008), the notion of conceived time (CT) is often used for the conceptualization of time that hosts the processual profile of a clause-level predication. However, conceived time is a very broad notion, defined as ‘time as an object of conceptualization’; it thus comprises many kinds of time expressions, extending from nouns such as Christmas or weekend to purely grammatical systems such as tense. This is why I use the more specific term veridical time, which is the subtype of conceived time that hosts the processual profile of the clause and is the conceptualization of time within which tense and aspect operate. Tense positions the designated relationship with respect to the speaker’s present, while aspect comprises its internal time structure, including duration.

According to Langacker (Reference Langacker, Filipovic and Jaszczolt2012: 207), the role of time as the dimension through which events unfold is actually peripheral compared to its function in temporal prepositions such as before and after, where time is ‘the domain in which the profiled relationship is manifested, just as space is with spatial prepositions’. This distinction further motivates the postulation of different subtypes of conceived time. One conceptualization (VT) serves as the dimension through which an event unfolds, while another one serves as the domain where the profiled relationship is manifested. An important example of the latter is the metaphorical conceptualization of time as a path. This conceptualization will be referred to as a metaphorical path (MP), and it is typical in metaphorical expressions where the passage of time is expressed as motion, as in Christmas is coming. In this example, the MP is an element of the profiled metaphorical motion scenario, a path along which Christmas is moving closer to Ego. The duration of the motion event is then tracked against veridical time, VT, by sequentially scanning the event. As noted in Huumo (Reference Huumo2017), in most cases these two conceptualizations of time correlate, but there are also expressions where this is not the case. For instance, Christmas is two weeks away means that there is a metaphorical distance between Ego and (the future) Christmas, but no motion is indicated. In aspectual terms, however, the example designates a state which has an unbounded duration in VT. In other words, there is duration in VT without motion on the MP. The opposite is true of Next Wednesday’s meeting has been moved forward two days (an ambiguous test sentence often used in psycholinguistic experiments; see Duffy & Feist Reference Duffy and Feist2014 and the literature they cite), where two days designates the distance moved by the (future) meeting on a MP, while the VT duration of the event of ‘moving’ the meeting (i.e. making the decision to reschedule it) is presumably of a much shorter duration. Such examples demonstrate the need to distinguish MP and VT from one another, and show that distance on a MP does not always correlate with duration in VT.

Another important difference is the one between absolute time and relative time. The notion of absolute time (see also Huumo Reference Huumo2017) refers to a conceptualization of time consisting of the actual past, the ceaselessly shifting present, and an expectation of such future entities as have an immutable position on the timeline (such as next Christmas, the year 2057, Easter 2089, i.e. historic and calendric events). Conventional time-reckoning systems, such as calendars or clocks, are representations of absolute time. The passage of absolute time takes place at a constant rate. The notion of veridical time, introduced above, is one conceptualization of absolute time, but metaphorical conceptualizations of time as a path can likewise be about absolute time. For example, the sentence Christmas is coming indicates the imminence of a future absolute-time entity metaphorically as motion towards Ego along a path which is thus a conceptualization of absolute time.

The notion of relative time refers to time-like conceptualizations without a conventionally agreed position in absolute time. These include events or activities, as in activity path metaphors (e.g. We are halfway through the job, an example from Moore Reference Moore2014a), where phases of an activity have a certain temporal order but progression from one phase to the next depends on the efforts of the participants (see e.g. Fauconnier Reference Fauconnier1997: 25–29; Moore Reference Moore2014b). When an event is actually carried out, advancement from one phase to the next is mapped onto absolute time. In this process, the event acquires an immutable position as part of the past (absolute time). As opposed to past events, future relative-time entities are non-factual (fictive in terms of Talmy Reference Talmy2000), and their position in future absolute time can only be anticipated and – to an extent – manipulated: we can, for instance, cancel pre-planned activities or re-schedule them, as in the ‘next Wednesday’s meeting’ example above.

Linguistically, elements of absolute time are typical reference points for localizing entities of relative time – consider The meeting took place in the afternoon, World War II broke out on 1 September 1939, I was born on September 14th, or John washed the dishes in the evening. In these expressions, entities of absolute time serve as Landmarks in prepositional expressions that specify the time of occurrence of relative-time entities. It is often less natural (though not impossible) to use a relative-time entity as a reference point for localizing an absolute-time entity, as in Afternoon arrived during the meeting or September 1st 1939 was dawning when World War II broke out. Absolute-time entities can also be related to other absolute-time entities (e.g. The Advent Sundays are before Christmas, May Day is the 1st of May), and relative-time entities to other relative-time entities (e.g. Mary left after Jane had arrived). In each case, the important factor is that the speaker assumes the hearer to be familiar with the time of occurrence of the entity that serves as the Landmark.

In sum, veridical time is the conceptualization of absolute time that hosts the processual profile of the clause, tracks its duration (in aspectual terms), and positions it with respect to the speaker’s present (by means of tense). Absolute time can alternatively be conceptualized metaphorically as a path on which something moves, as in Christmas is coming. Since a future Christmas is a conventional absolute-time entity, its metaphorical motion is inevitable and ultimately leads to its ‘occurrence’ (to Ego).

Such path-like conceptualizations can also involve relative times, which include events and event structures without a conventionally established position in absolute time. For instance, the expression We are halfway through the job, which is an activity path metaphor (or a purposeful activity in the terminology of Moore Reference Moore2014a), represents the position of a mover on a path of relative time which consists of the ordered phases of ‘the job’. Unlike the lapse of absolute time, motion along the activity path is not inevitable but depends on the efforts of the participants (see also Moore Reference Moore2014b). The motion may thus not proceed at a constant rate, and may even cease, if the agent stops the activity. It is likewise possible to form expressions where two or more metaphorical movers are at different stages of an activity path while sharing the same ‘now’ in VT. Consider Lisa and I were eating a sliced pizza together, but she was two slices ahead of me. In this example, there are two agents cooperatively performing an activity directed towards an incremental theme (the pizza) in Dowty’s (1991) terms. The preposition ahead of evokes a motion metaphor with an activity path, with the two agents situated at different points of that path (Lisa is further advanced than I am) while they share the same ‘now’ in VT.

Figure 1 represents the notions of time introduced above (absolute–relative vs. veridical–figurative) as well as their linguistic expressions on the continuum from lexical to purely grammatical, illustrated by some examples of linguistic elements used to express these relations.

In this figure, the three distinctions made above are represented as three dimensions: absolute vs. relative time (vertical dimension), veridical vs. figurative conceptualizations (front–back dimension), and lexical vs. grammatical expressions (lateral dimension). The figure also gives some examples of how linguistic elements (when used in a particular way) relate to the system. For instance, tense in its typical use is a fully grammatical, veridical expression for absolute time, but it can also be used figuratively for relative time, as in text organization (Above I have discussed $\ldots$ ). An event structure as such (as an abstraction) is a relative-time entity that acquires a fixed position in absolute time when the event is carried out. Between the two, aspectual expressions are grammatical elements that relate event structures to a veridical conceptualization of absolute time. Situated between fully grammatical and lexical resources are lexico-grammatical constructions, such as prepositional phrases and adverbs. Again, there are literal temporal prepositions, such as during, before, and after, and non-temporal (spatial) prepositions, which can be used figuratively for absolute time (Christmas is ahead) or for relative time (Lisa is ahead of me in her studies). Lexical words, such as nouns and verbs, include literal expressions for absolute-time and relative-time notions, while metaphorical expressions rely on figurative uses of such words.

Figure 1

Central concepts of time and their linguistic expressions, with some examples.

In more traditional terms, the notions of absolute and relative time have to do with the referents being expressed; the notions of veridical and figurative time relate to the way of conceptualizing these referents (i.e. linguistic meaning); and the notions of lexical, constructional and grammatical relate to the linguistic forms used in the expressions. These dimensions thus correspond to the classical division into form, meaning (as conceptualization), and reference.

In the sections that follow I analyze spatial and temporal path expressions against these notions of time and the typology of paths introduced in Section 1. I start with the assumption that such uses are metaphorical: in other words, they evoke a metaphorical motion scenario involving an MP with something moving on it, and this motion is then tracked against VT. Section 3 deals with spatial paths of locomotion and their time-path counterparts, Section 4 with paths of growing extent, Section 5 with paths of location, and Section 6 with frame-setting paths. Each section begins with an introduction of the respective path type. Some of the path types have subcategories, discussed in subsections.

3.1 Motion designated by motion verbs

The canonical function of a path expression is to elaborate the schematic trajectory which is part of the meaning of the verb. In terms of Cognitive Grammar, this means that the path expression is a complement of the verb. Prototypical verb classes in such expressions are verbs of motion (intransitive) and of caused motion (transitive). In expressions of spatial motion, the path coincides with the trajectory of a point-like mover, which occupies successive points on the path at subsequent points of VT. The mover may be designated by the grammatical subject, as in (1), the object, as in (2), or both, as in (3).

These examples are simple and their meaning is self-evident as regards the conceptualization of the motion along the path. In (1), the subject designates a mover that gradually traverses the path, occupying adjacent points on the path at subsequent points of VT as the unfolding of the event is sequentially scanned. In (2), the subject referent is not a mover but causes the motion of the object referent on the path. In (3), both participants are moving, as the subject referent continues to cause the motion of the object referent (such relationships are referred to as ‘extended causation’ by Talmy Reference Talmy2000: 415–418).

The closest temporal equivalents for examples (1)–(3) are metaphors that designate the lapse of time as self-propelled motion. In such metaphors, the mover can be Ego, in which case the path expression has a temporal entity as its Landmark, as illustrated in examples (4)–(6). (The examples in (5) and (6) are from the Internet.)

In (4), Ego’s metaphorical motion along the time path ‘through a hard winter’ is profiled by the verb go. In Cognitive Grammar terms, the prepositional expression is a complement of the motion verb. Examples (5) and (6) illustrate uses of the prepositions past and over in metaphors of moving Ego. They differ from (4) in that in (5) and (6) the search domain (i.e. the area where the Trajector is situated when it traverses the path) is not located within the Landmark but outside it. Example (6) is a special case of moving Ego, where the Landmark (Christmas) has a metonymic reading: it stands for activities associated with a calendric event, such as festivities. By not participating in the festivities the mover metaphorically skips over Christmas, as though not experiencing it at all. This would be impossible if Christmas were understood non-metonymically as an absolute-time entity (i.e. December 25). In the metonymic reading, Christmas has features of a relative-time entity, and the Ego can then choose whether or not to participate in it (e.g. I skipped my birthday ‘did not celebrate it’).

Alternatively, in an Ego-centered moving time metaphor, the mover is a temporal entity which moves with respect to a stationary Ego coded as the (implicit) Landmark; see examples (7)–(8).

Examples (7) and (8) illustrate uses of path prepositions in metaphors of Ego-centered moving time (Moore Reference Moore2014a), where Ego is stationary and temporal entities move with respect to her in the general direction future $\rightarrow$ present $\rightarrow$ past. In these examples, Ego is the Landmark; as is often the case, however, in (7) and (8) it is not overtly expressed. A semantic constraint for prepositions in such expressions is that they must select a point-like entity as their Landmark. For instance, the preposition through, which requires a three-dimensional Landmark, is not felicitous in such metaphors (e.g. ??The days went through us).

In examples (4)–(8), the mover is in each case designated by the grammatical subject. For temporal equivalents to (2) above, where only the object referent is moving, and (3), where both subject and object referents are moving, consider (9) and (10):

Example (9) can be considered the temporal equivalent of (2) (‘throwing a rock over the fence’; see also Jackendoff Reference Jackendoff1983: 190). It designates a temporal manipulation whereby the position of a future relative-time entity, the appointment, is changed on a path-like conceptualization of future absolute time. The manipulation is linguistically represented as the meeting’s caused motion along the path and past the Landmark of over. As in (2) (‘throwing a rock over the fence’), the subject referent does not accompany the object referent in its motion: only the position of the future appointment on the metaphorical path changes. The duration of the event in VT is confined to the interval it takes to make the decision to postpone the appointment. This has the consequence that the ‘motion’ of the meeting is conceived of as abruptFootnote ^[8] and is not tracked in a part-by-part manner.

In (10), the subject referent (the plenary speaker) causes the metaphorical motion of the object referent (the closing of the conference) while both advance on the path. The subject referent achieves this by keeping up an activity (of speaking) that delays the closing more and more. Note that the path expression past dinner time has two readings, depending on whether it is understood as a complement of the caused-motion verb drag or as a free modifier. In the former case, the prepositional expression elaborates the schematic path that is inherent to the meaning of the verb drag: ‘the plenary speaker caused the closing of the conference to move past dinner time’. In this reading, the prepositional phrase relates to metaphorical motion along the MP evoked by the verb. In the second reading, the prepositional phrase is a modifier relating to the (VT) duration of the ‘dragging’ event: ‘the speaker caused the closing to move (along a metaphorical path) until the time was past dinner time’. In the latter reading, the mover is the processual profile of the clause advancing in VT. This is in fact a prototypical function for time-path expressions, and such examples will be further discussed in Section 3.2.

In examples such as (9) and (10), the subject referent can be a concrete, agentive entity but the object referent has to be a point-like (‘punctual’ in aspectual terms) relative-time entity, with no fixed (unchangeable) position in absolute time. An entity of absolute time cannot undergo such manipulation, as shown by the ill-formedness of *Lisa moved Thursday over the weekend (recall (9) above) or *Lisa dragged Christmas past New Year’s Day (recall (10) above). A non-punctual relative time entity, such as vacation or meeting, may alternatively be conceptualized as extending or expanding in time, in which case it is not moving as a whole; such examples will be discussed in Section 4.

3.2 Verbs not designating motion

The expressions of metaphorical motion discussed in Section 3.1 are in fact a special case as regards the use of path prepositions in expressions of time. A more typical use is the one already illustrated by the second reading of example (10) above, where the time path relates to the advancement of the event’s processual profile in VT, rather than to a distance metaphorically traversed. In such uses the mover is the evolving temporal profile of a process, not the individual participants in the process. Moore (Reference Moore2014a: 44–45) calls such expressions a situation is a mover metaphors. Consider the following two examples:

In (11) and (12), the time-path expressions are not complements of the verbs. The verbs sleep and read do not designate motion, and there is no schematic trajectory in their meaning. The prepositional expressions relate to the duration of the event in VT – in other words, the activities designated by the verbs in (11) and (12) coincide with a time-span conceptualized as a path. Examples (11) and (12) are thus fundamentally different from those discussed in Section 3.1, where the time-path expressions were complements of motion verbs.

The uses illustrated in (11) and (12) have counterparts in spatial path expressions, which can likewise be used for situations where advancement along the path is not propelled by the (linguistically expressed) activities of the participants. Consider the next two examples:

In (13), John is traversing a spatial path but his activity, sleeping, is not motion; the verb does not contribute semantically to the path, which rests solely on the prepositional phrases. In his typology of motion-event descriptions, Talmy (Reference Talmy2000) uses the term ‘concomitance’ for such expressions: the co-event (‘sleep’) is concomitant with the motion event, and it is an activity or state that the Figure of the Motion event (i.e. the mover in our terms) manifests independently of its motion or locatedness. In the transitive example (14), the tour guide’s talking likewise coincides with motion toward the border (for instance of a tourist bus), but the verb does not designate this motion and the path is thus construed independently of it. In both (13) and (14), the path metonymically specifies the duration of the activity, which coincides with the traversing of the path and potentially ends after that (though this is not explicitly stated). In grammatical terms such path expressions are free adverbials, not complements of the verb. This argument finds support in the possibility of using frame-setting prepositions, such as throughout and all through, as paraphrases for through (in (13), John slept all through ${\sim}$ throughout Central Germany). In contrast, when through is used with a motion verb to indicate a path of locomotion, it typically cannot be paraphrased by such frame-setting prepositions (consider *We went throughout a hard winter).

Spatial path expressions in motion descriptions of the concomitance type often have a metonymic temporal function: the activity designated by the verb coincides in (veridical) time with the motion on the path. This meaning is especially strong in the from–to (source $+$ goal) specification in (13), which is a felicitous answer to a ‘when’ question, as in the following mini-dialogue:

Speaker A: When did John say he slept on the train?

Speaker B: I think it was from Frankfurt to Berlin.

In this respect the spatial ‘from–to’ path in (13) again differs from a path of locomotion, such as John drove from Frankfurt to Berlin, which is apparently not a felicitous answer to the question When did John drive? – at least if the ‘from–to’ specification is understood as a complement of the motion verb. However, if it is understood as a free modifier, as in example (13), the metonymic temporal reading is again possible. A context that foregrounds such a reading is the one where John and his companions took turns driving. In such a context, from Frankfurt to Berlin does not necessarily designate a source $+$ goal combination but an intermediate section of a longer trip, with both spatial and temporal implications (‘John drove when the car and its passengers were between Frankfurt and Berlin’). In this case, Frankfurt and Berlin are not only points of space but additionally have a metonymic temporal function specifying ‘the span of time between leaving Frankfurt and arriving in Berlin’ when John’s driving takes place.

From the point of view of a passenger, the motion of a vehicle along its route, as in (13), can be thought of as inevitable and unstoppable, and in this sense similar to the inevitable and unstoppable flow of time. For instance, the progression of a train along its track provides a metonymic frame for locating events that take place during the trip, against the changing position of the train (consider Since the train was very crowded, Jane stood up well BEFORE her station to make sure she could exit ‘earlier than the time when the train arrived at her station’).

3.3 Verbs designating a gradual change

In Section 3.2, the events coinciding with the motion were internally homogeneous and continuous, and the issue was whether the verb designates motion along the metaphorical path (MP) or whether the path is merely associated with the temporal profile of the event (its duration in VT) in a situation is a mover metaphor. In this section, I briefly discuss expressions that designate a gradual change undergone by an entity that moves along the path and maintains its identity throughout the event. Such a meaning is apparently less naturally expressed by a spatial path expression than by a temporal one. Consider the following two temporal examples:

In (15), the Trajector, ‘the pain’ undergoes a change while the temporal profile of the event progresses along the time path. In (16), the Trajector ‘the neighbors’ children’ undergo a change as time evolves. Possible spatial counterparts for this time-path type are expressions that designate actual motion in space by an entity simultaneously undergoing a change. Such expressions likewise belong to Talmy’s concomitance type, as illustrated in the following two examples:

The prototypical path preposition through in (17) and both through and along in (18) are infelicitous. On the other hand, the frame-setting preposition throughout and the directional towards work better in (17). This suggests that a prototypical path preposition whose basic function is the expression of a path of locomotion is not felicitous with a verb that indicates a gradual change undergone by the entity moving along the path.

6.1 Paths of event occurrence

A frame-setting path of event occurrence scans a search domain within which a similar event is taking place at every point on the path. In such expressions, the path – unlike the paths of location discussed in Section 5 – is not conceptualized so as to track the (spatial or temporal) contour of a pre-existing Trajector, but in purely subjective terms. Such clause-level expressions often have an existential meaning, where the conceptualizer construes the path and then indicates what exists along the path (see Huumo Reference Huumo2013). Consider examples (33) (space) and (34) (time):

Example 33 designates a geographical area directionally, following the progression of a scanning by the conceptualizer. When the focus of the conceptualizer advances in the search domain, the process of raining is encountered everywhere within it. No particular direction is specified, and the path can be understood as extending in any chosen direction across the search domain (see Dewell Reference Dewell2007). Note in particular that the example lacks a reading with actual motion: it does not mean that a rainy area was proceeding directionally over Northern Europe (actual motion) but that the rain was taking place everywhere within the region selected as the Landmark at a time (in VT) designated by the sentence.

In (34) there is a seemingly similar predication about rain, distributed over a time span conceptualized as a path. However, while the prepositions throughout and all through are acceptable in (34), all over and all across make the sentence ill-formed. In semantic terms, the difference between (33) and (34) is that in (33) the rain is understood as occurring at (approximately) the same time at each point along the spatial path, while in (34) the rain has a duration over a stretch of time. Since the path is a conceptualization of absolute time, the Trajector’s occurrence at different points on the path obviously cannot be simultaneous. Rather, the indicated time path hosts a process which is designated by the finite verb and then sequentially scanned. In this sense, (34) does not differ essentially from the examples of temporal paths of (metaphorical) locomotion, such as John slept through the afternoon, discussed in Section 3.2 above. Both instantiate a situation is a mover metaphor, where the mover is the event expressed by the finite verb. More precisely, the event has a temporal profile sequentially scanned in VT, and it is this profile that advances on the time path specified by the prepositional expression.

6.2 Paths of entity comparison

Another subtype of frame-setting path consists of expressions where a difference between individuals is represented linguistically as though it were a change (see Sweetser Reference Sweetser, Nuyts and Pederson1997). Such a comparison may be based on the scanning of a spatial area, as in (35), or on the scanning of a span of time, as in (36)–(39):

In (35), get shorter does not designate an actual change undergone by individual trees but a difference between trees growing in more southern locales, as opposed to those located further to the north. The change predicate get shorter is motivated by a scanning operation (as in fictive motion): the conceptualizer moves his focus of attention through space, encounters entities of the same category at different locations, observes a difference between them, and represents this linguistically as though the entities were moving and undergoing a change. Example (36) is an attempt to form a similar temporal example with concrete entities as Trajectors. Without a suitable context it appears awkward, but (37) illustrates a more specific context where such a predication is felicitous – that the average height of Christmas trees for sale differs from one day to the next, for instance because taller trees are sold first. Example (38) has as its Trajector an abstract, role-like entity with individual fillers at different times (the prices effective at a certain time): the closer a time is to Christmas, the higher the prices in effect at that time. Example (39), like the spatial (35), compares successive temporal entities and presents a difference as change.

Like spatial paths of location (Section 5), spatial frame-setting paths of entity comparison allow the scan of a spatial range to proceed in any direction along the path, in which case the quality assigned to the individuals being compared alternates with its opposite. Thus (35) can have (40) as a counterpart, representing a conceptualization of the same extra-linguistic situation but with the opposite directionality.

In time, however, a scan in the later $\rightarrow$ earlier direction is again clearly more restricted in scope than the canonical earlier $\rightarrow$ later scan. Examples (37)–(39) above, as well as (41) and (42) below, only allow an earlier $\rightarrow$ later scan, with the conceptualizer scrutinizing time proceeding towards later but not earlier times. A special case, allowing the later $\rightarrow$ earlier scan, is found in (43):

Examples (41) and (42) suggest that a scan of time that proceeds in the direction specified by further away from must be understood as proceeding in an earlier $\rightarrow$ later direction. Example (43) illustrates an exception to this general principle, but lacks a path expression.

6.3 Paths of entity occurrence

Now consider the following examples, representing paths of entity occurrence. In such expressions, the Trajectors are entities that fill the search domain. In (44) and (45), events conceptualized as entities occur everywhere within the search domain, while in (46) and (47) there are concrete entities occupying the search domain.

As is generally the case in expressions of frame-setting paths, the Trajectors in (44)–(47) do not traverse the path but are situated along it. In (44), the explosions are distributed in space so as to that fill the search domain specified by throughout. In (45) a similar distribution in time is indicated, which means that the (punctual) events occur in succession and gradually fill the entire span of time. Such events or their participants are not advancing or extending in space or time but are encountered in a point-like fashion when the conceptualizer’s focus of attention reaches their position on the path.

Examples (46) and (47) designate the presence of entities (mushrooms) in space and time, respectively. Since mushrooms are concrete entities rather than events, the existence of individual mushrooms in (46) is not punctual; some of them may in fact continue to exist for the whole span of time indicated. However, the conceptualizer does not follow the individual entities through time (as in the examples discussed in Section 3.2) but scans the span of time and observes the existence of the Trajectors at every point on the scanned path. This is why (46) does not predicate the duration of the existence of any individual mushroom. In a figurative description, the indefinite nature of the bare plural mushrooms (see Carlson Reference Carlson1977) renews itself throughout the process, and the point of view is not on the individual referents but on the path and what it contains (see Huumo Reference Huumo2013).