Time and Cognition in Marvell’s “To his Coy Mistress”

in Cognitive Semantics
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Andrew Marvell’s poem “To his coy mistress” has generally been taken as one more example of the carpe diem tradition in literature. This tradition makes use of time metaphors, especially time is a resource. However, we find that Marvell exploits this and other time metaphors in ways that go beyond the traditional understanding of the carpe diem motif. We first give an overview of the treatment of the notion of time within Conceptual Metaphor Theory, which is then applied to the understanding of central thematic and structural aspects of the poem. We stress the importance of the metaphors time is a resource, time moves, events are actions and a cluster of metaphors revolving around the carpe diem motif. Finally, the paper discusses how Marvell imaginatively organizes what otherwise would be considered mere stock metaphors into an intricate logical network specifically tailored to sustain an argumentative line.

Time and Cognition in Marvell’s “To his Coy Mistress”

in Cognitive Semantics

Sections

References

BennettJoan. 1989. Five Metaphysical Poets: Donne Herbert Vaughan Crashaw Marvell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

BirkeDorotheaButterMichael and KöppeTilmann. 2011. Counterfactual Thinking – Counterfactual Writing. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

BoroditskyLera. 2000. Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition 75: 128.

BraekmanWilliam. L.2004. Marvell’s coy mistress finding rubies. English Studies 85 (6): 528531.

CasasantoDaniel and BoroditskyLera. 2008. Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition 106: 579593.

ChambersAlexander B.2010. Andrew Marvell and Edmund Waller: Seventeenth-century Praise and Restoration Satire. Pennsylvania: Penn State Press.

ClarkHerbert H.1973. Space, time, semantics, and the child. In MooreT. E. (ed.) Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language2763. New York: Academic Press.

DarianSteven G.2001. The Ganges in Myth and History. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

DirvenRené and RuizFrancisco de Mendoza. 2010. Looking back at thirty years of Cognitive Linguistics. In TabakowskaE.ChoinskiM. and WiraszkaL. (eds.) Cognitive Linguistics in Action: From Theory to Application and back1370. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

EvansVyvyan. 2003. The Structure of Time. Language Meaning and Temporal Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

EvansVyvyan. 2013a. Language and Time: A Cognitive Linguistics Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

EvansVyvyan. 2013b. Temporal frames of reference. Cognitive Linguistics 24(3): 393435.

FauconnierGilles and TurnerMark. 1994. Conceptual projection and middle spaces. Report 9401 Department of Cognitive Science, University of CaliforniaSan Diego.

FauconnierGilles and TurnerMark. 2002. The Way We Think. Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.

FillmoreCharles J.1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.) Linguistics in the Morning Calm111138. Seoul: Hanshin.

FillmoreCharles J.1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6: 222255.

FreemanMargaret H.2006. The fall of the wall between literary studies and linguistics: Cognitive Poetics. In KristiansenG.AchardM.DirvenR. and MendozaF. Ruiz de (eds.) Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives403428. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

GaltonAnthony. 2011. Time flies but space doesn’t: Limits to the spatialization of time. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 695703.

GibbsRaymond. W.2011. Evaluating conceptual metaphor theory. Discourse Processes 48 (8): 529562.

GonzálvezFranciscoSandra PeñaM. and PérezLorena (eds.) 2013. Metaphor and Metonymy Revisited Beyond the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

HarrisonChloe and StockwellPeter. 2014. Cognitive Poetics. In TaylorJ. R. and LittlemoreJ. (eds.) The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury.

HirstDerek and ZwickerSteven N.. 2011. The Cambridge Companion to Andrew Marvell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

HühnPeter2011. Andrew Marvell: “To His Coy Mistress”. In HühnP. and JensJ. Kiefer (eds.) The Narratological Analysis of Lyric Poetry. Studies in English Poetry from the 16th to the 20th Century4556. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

KövecsesZoltan. 2006. Language Mind and Culture: a Practical Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

LakoffGeorge. 1987. Women Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

LakoffGeorge. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In OrtonyA. (ed.) Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed.) 202251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

LakoffGeorge. 1996. Sorry, I’m not myself today: the metaphor system for conceptualizing the Self. In FauconnierG. and SweetserE. (eds.) Spaces Worlds and Grammar91123. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

LakoffGeorge and JohnsonMark. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

LakoffGeorge and JohnsonMark. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books.

LakoffGeorge and TurnerMark. 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

LeeMichelle. 2008 To His Coy Mistress by Andrew Marvell. Poetry Criticism171282. Detroit: Gale.

LoxleyJames2012. Echoes as evidence in the poetry of Andrew Marvell. SEL Studies in English Literature 1500–1900 52(1): 165185.

MahdiAli Abduljalil. 2011. Archetypal elements in Andrew Marvell’s “To his Coy Mistress.”Studies in Literature and Language 3(3): 133135.

MooDouglas J.1996. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing.

MooreKevin Ezra. 2014a. The Spatial Language of Time. Metaphor Metonymy and Frames of Reference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

MooreKevin Ezra. 2014b. The two-Mover hypothesis and the significance of “direction of motion” in temporal metaphors. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 12(2): 375409.

NúñezRafael and SweetserEve. 2006. Looking ahead to the past: Convergent evidence from Aymara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time. Cognitive Science 30: 401450.

ReiffRaychel Hangrud. 2002. Marvell’s To His Coy Mistress. The Explicator 60 (4): 196198.

Ruiz de MendozaFrancisco. 1998. On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics 30 (3): 259274.

Ruiz de MendozaFrancisco and LorenaPérez. 2011. The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol 26: 161185.

SperberDan and WilsonDeirdre. 2004. Relevance theory. In WardG. and HornL. (eds.) Handbook of Pragmatics607632. Oxford: Blackwell.

TannenDeborah. 2006. Intertextuality in interaction: Reframing family arguments in public and in private.Text & Talk. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language Discourse Communication Studies 26 (4–5): 597617.

TannenDeborah. 2011. That’s Not What I Meant. New York: Harper Collins.

TsurReuben. 2002. Some aspects of Cognitive Poetics. In E. Semino and J. Culpeper (eds.) Cognitive Stylistics: Language and Cognition in Texts Analysis279318. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

TurnerMark. 1996. The Literary Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

YandellCathy M.1994. Carpe Diem, Poetic Immortality, and the Gendered Ideology of Time. In LarsenA. R. and WinnC. H. (eds.) Renaissance Women Writers. French Texts/American contexts115129. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

WardGregory and HornLaurence R.. 2004. Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.

WilcherRobert. 1985. Andree Marvell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

WinnLawrence. 2006. Carpe Diem: Relational scripts and “seizing the day”. In GalicianM. L. and MerskinD. L. (eds.) Critical Thinking About Sex Love and Romance in the Mass Media: Media Literacy Applications214231. Mahwah, New Jersey: Routledge.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 233 233 34
Full Text Views 116 116 63
PDF Downloads 13 13 7
EPUB Downloads 7 7 0