This article investigates the relation between language and cognitive processes in the contemporary Lithuanian historiography. An attempt is made to distinguish the prejudices (using Gadamer’s terminology) or framing structures (Heidegger’s fore-structures) influencing the cognitive processes involved in the translation of noetic acts and memories into communicative acts. Basing on Bergson’s representation of the relation between conscience, memory and action (in this case intended as history-writing) we investigate how the unity in the national history (the continuity in the history of contemporary political entity) is construed. In the second part of the article, a number of historiographical works are analysed in order to put to test and revise the theoretical premises. Notably, while supposedly time and space are two of the most important framing structures, in Lithuanian historiography dealing with national history space is rather a concept selected and defined by that of time – not a fore-structure. In turn, historical time seems not to be a metaphor of the experienced one – it usually refers to already linguistically formulated concepts. This is evident when scholars renounce every ‘signifier’ directly connected to a ‘signified’ (terms directly referring to language, borders, geographical elements, administrative divisions) preferring already linguistically construed ‘meanings’ (nation, identity, culture) when formulating historical problems. The possibility to frame space in time and time in language permits to construe the unity of national history. The unity in the national history is attained by exploiting the polysemy of certain expressions and figures of speech. Moreover, in order to construe the unity in the national history, scholars tend to exclude the referents even from the definitions of framing structures such as space and time. [...]