This article explores the interaction between language and thought, focusing particularly on how temporal metaphors shape cognitive processes and cultural perception. Drawing on the Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis, Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff & Johnson), and modern approaches in cognitive linguistics, the study compares temporal metaphors in English and Uzbek. It examines the cognitive mechanisms underlying the “Observer Moving Metaphor” and “Time Moving Metaphor” models, highlighting the role of reference points in spatial–temporal processing. The findings indicate that while temporal metaphors exhibit universal cognitive patterns, they also reflect culture-specific conceptualizations of time, influencing how speakers perceive and structure temporal experience.                                                                                                                                        

Language and thought, linguistic relativity, temporal metaphors, conceptual metaphor, cognitive models, OMM, TMM, cultural cognition, time conceptualization.

Boroditsky, Lera. “How Languages Construct Time.” Space, Time and Number in the Brain, edited by Stanislas Dehaene and Elizabeth Brannon, Academic Press, 2011, pp. 333–341.

Degroot, Véronique. Candi, Space and Landscape: A Study on the Distribution, Orientation and Spatial Organization of Central Javanese Temple Remains. Leiden UP, 2009.

Gentner, Dedre, et al. “As Time Goes By: Evidence for Two Systems in Processing Space–Time Metaphors.” Language and Cognitive Processes, vol. 17, no. 5, 2002, pp. 537–565.

Herder, Johann Gottfried. Essay on the Origin of Language. U of Chicago P, 2002.

Humboldt, Wilhelm von. On Language: The Diversity of Human Language and Its Influence on the Mental Development of Mankind. Cambridge UP, 1999.

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. U of Chicago P, 1980.

Langacker, Ronald W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford UP, 1987.

Sapir, Edward. “The Status of Linguistics as a Science.” Language, vol. 5, no. 4, 1929, pp. 207–214.