A Cognitive Perspective of the Chinese and English Expressions for the Concept of "Present"/UNE PERSPECTIVE COGNITIVE DES EXPRESSIONS CHINOISE ET ANGLAISE POUR LE CONCEPT DE PRÉSENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Human beings are only species that can perceive existence of time. However, linguistic expressions for concept of are usually indirect. From a cognitive linguistic point of view, concept of is materialized via TIME-AS-SPACE metaphor. However, each culture has its own conceptualization of time, and thus there are various cognitive models for a particular concept. This paper tries to identify and analyze Chinese and English expressions for concept of so as to establish cognitive models for this concept in Chinese culture and in English culture respectively. Key words: cognitive model, concept, present Resume: L'etre humain est la seule espece qui peut percevoir l'existence de temps. Cependant, pour le concept de temps, les expressions linguistiques sont normalement indirectes. Du point de vue linguistique cognitive, le concept de temps est materialise par la metaphore TEMPS-COMME-ESPACE. Cependant, chaque culture a sa propre conceptualisation de temps, donc il y a differents modeles cognitifs pour un particulaire concept de temps. Cette memoire essaie d'identifier et analyser les expressions chinoise et anglaise pour le concept de present, afin d'etablir les modeles cognitifs pour ce concept dans la culture chinoise et dans la culture anglaise respectivement. Mots-Cles: modele cognitif, concept de temps, present INTRODUCTION The most influential Christian thinker, St Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) once said: Quid est ergo tempus? Si nemo ex me quaerat, scio; si quaerenti explicare velim, nescio. (What then is time? If no one asks me, I know: if I wish to explain it to one that asketh, I know not.) (Confessions, Book 11, 11.14.17)1. Indeed, is most fascinating phenomenon for human beings and for human beings only, since no other animals have concept of time. Time is intriguing because everyone knows it exists, in one way or another, but no one can perceive as they perceive other entities such as objects or temperature. Human beings are equipped with all kinds of specialized sensory device for various physical stimuli, such as eyes for visual stimuli and ears for audio stimuli. However, there is no such a specific organ on human body designed for perception and measurement of time. Stealthy, imperceptible, makes its presence known by transforming our sense of it into sensation. For though cannot see, touch, or hear time, observe regularity of what appears to be its passage in our seasons, in orchestrated shift from dawn to dusk to dark, and in aging of our bodies (Evans, 2003, p. 3). Since in itself is both intangible and imperceptible, can only perceive its existence and flow through its tangible consequences. Time has drawn numerous scholars' attentions through history, and has been studied from various perspectives, i.e. physical, represented by Isaac Newton and Einstein; religious, represented by Buddha and St. Augustine; philosophical, represented by great minds from Plato all way to Husserl and Heidegger. Linguists have also been quite interested in issue of time, focusing on linguistic notions of time, because the manner in which temporal concepts are ELABORATED, which is to say structured by conceptual content from other (i.e., non-temporal) domains, provides important insights into nature and structure of time (Evans, 2003, p. 5). It is observed that we ordinarily think and talk about not in time's own term, whatever these may be, but rather in precisely those terms which derive from events. . .time structures - after all talk about 'passage' or 'flow' of and about being 'located in' time. In doing so spatialize time (Evans, 2003, p. 5). As a famous line goes, Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, and today is a gift. That's why call it-The Present. John McTaggart Ellis McTaggart (1866 - 1925), a well-known British Idealist philosopher, studies in his best-known work The Unreality of ? …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".