Tempo-spatial construction in human-law-society triangle from the perspective of cognitive semiotics

Time and space, often treated as psychological backdrops, have become core topics across disciplines such as sociolinguistics, urban studies, human geography and cultural anthropology. Beyond being background, they function as cognitive foregrounds in the evolution of matters across humanity, law and society, which are strongly interdependent. Prior work has examined spatial philosophy of law and temporal views of law, and multiple models classify time (e.g., cyclical vs. linear; points, age, continuity) and space (e.g., place as internalized semiotic entity; space shaped by human practices). From a semiotic perspective, time and space are signs—the sign of time and the sign of space—that represent and create mental representations of temporal and spatial objects. This study moves from static to dynamic tempo-spatial construction, asking: (i) Do differing types of time and space, which entail different claims for social order, permeate into specific laws, and what are their human psychological representations? (ii) What is the inherent essence of time and space encoded in human, law and society during tempo-spatial construction? (iii) How do the sign of time and sign of space function in this cognitive construction? The study addresses these via analyses of temporal (cyclical, linear) and spatial (place, field) representations and by interpreting their semiotic essence and functions.

The paper surveys conceptualizations of time and space across disciplines: Haney (1969) distinguishes cyclicalism and linearism; Bowden (2017) elaborates on circular vs. unidirectional change; Nöth (2020) identifies time as points, age, and continuity and frames time/space as signs producing mental representations. For space, Lagopoulos (2009) treats place as an internalized semiotic entity; Harvey (1973, 2006) argues space is constructed by human practices. Work on linguistic landscapes and semiotics examines how signs mark spatial boundaries and develop temporal meanings (Saint-Martin, 1992; Backhaus, 2007; Shohamy et al., 2010; Dressler, 2015; Dong, 2020). Legal discourse studies cover terminology evolution, translation, rule evolution, and legal sign-systems (Ni et al., 2010; Prieto-Ramos, 2014; Niblett et al., 2010; Wagner et al., 2020). These foundations inform the study’s dynamic, intersemiotic view of tempo-spatial construction in law, humanity and society.

Materials and methods: The study uses a corpus-based approach with self-compiled legislative corpora on data protection–related topics from China, the EU, the US, and the UK. Topics include information confidentiality (ancient China), privacy, information/data security, data protection, and cybersecurity. Corpus composition followed four criteria: availability (official websites/authoritative sources), typicality (milestone and widely studied texts), language consistency (English originals for US/UK/EU; official English translations for China), and comparability (similar thematic scope and overall volume). Corpora included: Ancient Chinese Legislation (6 texts), Modern Chinese Legislation (8), EU Legislation (10), US Legislation (8), UK Legislation (6). Analysis procedures: Three pathways aligned to the research questions. (1) Human psychological representations: temporal and spatial. Temporal analysis comprised (i) reversible cyclical time in ancient law: keyword selection around data protection–related concepts and concordance lines using Wordsmith 8.0 to reveal cyclical features; (ii) continuous linear time in modern law: constructing linear timelines of laws and extracting core terms (e.g., “personal data”) and their statutory definitions via Wordsmith 8.0 to trace diachronic evolution. Spatial analysis comprised (iii) place space mapping: laws depicted on global maps (produced in Microsoft Word) to show local, national, and global legal geographies; (iv) field space detection: selecting interactional keywords (e.g., “right”) and examining concordance lines (Wordsmith 8.0) to reveal interactive practices and obligations within legal discourse. (2) Semiotic essence: building on these descriptions, the study interprets the covert essence of the sign of time and sign of space in human-law-society through a cognitive semiotic lens. (3) Functions: synthesizing tempo-spatial roles in constructing humanity, law and society, explaining how time and space operate as signs.

- Human psychological representations in tempo-spatial construction comprise four elements: cyclical time, linear time, place space, and field space. - Ancient laws exhibit reversible cyclical time: they are discontinuous across dynasties, oriented to maintaining static power and order, and tied to specific temporal stages; terms and laws often do not carry forward linearly across periods. - Modern laws exhibit continuous linear time: legal instruments and terms evolve cumulatively and irreversibly; points in time (promulgation/entry into force) and periods of validity structure continuity until superseded. - Empirical term evolution examples: EU “personal data” definitions progressed from “identifiable person” (Directive 95/46/EC, 1995; Decision 2008/977/JHA, 2008) to “identifiable natural person” with added identifiers (name, ID number, location, online identifier) and inclusion of genetic, biometric (for specified purposes), and health data (GDPR, 2016). In China, cybersecurity-related terms evolved and diversified: Cryptography (2019), Privacy (Civil Code, 2020), Personal information (2021), Data (2021). - Place space as the legal existence dimension is open, mobile, and hierarchical: local, national, and global layers interact; central places (e.g., EU) exert stronger regulatory power over peripheral members, affecting and transforming their laws. - Field space as legal content captures interactive practices encoded by discourse: rights and obligations (e.g., GDPR rights to be informed, access, rectification, erasure, restriction, portability, objection, and protection against automated decision-making) delineate behavioral domains for legal subjects and map onto dynamic, flexible activity spaces. - Tempo-spatial essence: time and space as sign systems express meanings through social dialogue and power negotiation among legal subjects; cyclical time encodes power eternality in ancient law, while linear time supports reform and innovation responsive to social needs. - Tempo-spatial conflicts manifest as competitions over legal rules—especially salient in cyberspace, which functions both as place space and field space; violations implicate sovereignty, obligations, and international rule competition. - Functions: signs of time and space map cognitive thinking modes (from cyclical rigidity to linear openness and progress) and enable the construction and reconstruction of law and society via recontextualization, dialogue, and negotiation.

The findings address the research questions by showing that differing temporal and spatial types are reflected in legal discourse and structure claims for social order. Cyclical time in ancient laws produces static systems, reinforcing rulers’ control and societal order. Linear time in modern laws enables iterative reform, multiple interpretations, and evolving connotations/denotations of legal terms, shifting temporal power toward individuals and social groups. Spatially, place space’s hierarchy shapes the diffusion and dominance of legal norms (central vs. peripheral jurisdictions), while field space captures the interactional relations between rights, power, and obligations; shifting scales in field relations constitutes a power move. Time and space are interdependent and jointly mediate meaning-making: as sign systems, they encode social dialogue and power negotiation among legal subjects in context. The extension to cyberspace illustrates how tempo-spatial conflicts and sovereignty issues reframe legal competition from material domains to legal rules, underscoring the semiotic nature of contemporary legal governance.

The study offers a holistic account of tempo-spatial construction in data protection–related legal discourse through cognitive semiotics. Contributions include: (i) identifying human psychological representations—cyclical vs. linear time and place vs. field space—in legal construction; (ii) explicating the semiotic essence of time and space as interdependent sign systems expressing meaning via social dialogue and power negotiation; (iii) demonstrating functions and potentials of signs of time and space in mapping cognitive thinking modes (from cyclical order to linear progress) and in constructing/reconstructing law and society across local, national, and global scales, including cyberspace. Implications suggest that legal evolution is a tempo-spatial dialogue responding to social contexts; as contexts change, legal texts must adapt. Future research could extend corpora, include additional jurisdictions and domains, and further operationalize measures of place/field dynamics and their impact on legal interpretation and compliance.