Cover not available
Article published In:
Constructions and Frames
Vol. 12:2 (2020) ► pp.272–314

Moving Time vs. Frame-relative motion

A frame-based account of the distinction between primary metaphor and fictive motion

| San José State University

There is an elaborate analogy between Moving Time (composed of primary metaphors; e.g. Christmas is approaching) and Frame-relative Fictive Motion (e.g. Your destination is approaching). It has been suggested that this analogy could be involved in the motivation of Moving Time. However, a semantic frame analysis that includes all stages of the motion event shows that this analogy could not be involved in the motivation of Moving Time. It is further argued that Moving Time and Frame-relative Fictive Motion are instances of different types of cognitive-semantic structure. Moving Time is a selective integration of concepts from frames that do not share elements with each other, whereas Frame-relative Fictive Motion presupposes a single semantic frame. For the purpose of distinguishing fictive motion from primary metaphor (e.g. Moving Time), Coextension-path and Pattern-path fictive motion are studied in addition to Frame-relative. These three types of fictive motion can be distinguished from primary metaphor because they involve the integration of concepts from frames that share specific structure, whereas primary metaphor involves frames that do not share specific structure.

In a preliminary classification of fictive motion as a type of metaphor, all three types of fictive motion discussed may be classified as resemblance-based metaphors. Coextension-path and Frame-relative fictive motion are also motivated by correlations in experience. These correlations, however, are different in kind from those that motivate primary metaphor.

Keywords: blending, conceptual metaphor, primary metaphor, image metaphor, resemblance-based metaphor, coextension-path, frame-relative, pattern-path, fictive motion, frames, conceptual integration
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Theoretical framework
    • 1.2Structure of the paper
  • 2.The analogy between Moving Time and Frame-relative fictive motion
    • 2.1Frames of reference
    • 2.2Aspects of the analogy
      • 2.2.1Ego’s phenomenal experience
      • 2.2.2Structure of the setting
      • 2.2.3Zero ground
      • 2.2.4Ego-moving counterparts
      • 2.2.5The reciprocal construction
    • 2.3Summary
  • 3.The disanalogy between ego-centered Moving Time and Frame-relative fictive motion
    • 3.1The contrast of arriving with approaching and passing
    • 3.2The contrasting frame structures of Frame-relative Fictive Motion and Moving Time
    • 3.3Summary
    • 3.4The frame-structure of traversing
    • 3.5The submappings of Moving Time
    • 3.6Preliminary conclusions
  • 4.The frame structure of Fictive Motion
    • 4.1Coextension-path fictive motion
      • 4.1.1Summary
    • 4.2Pattern-path fictive motion
    • 4.3Conclusions to Section 4
  • 5.Fictive motion as metaphor
    • 5.1Metaphor typology and the motivations of Pattern-path, Coextension-path, and Frame-relative fictive motion
      • 5.1.1The motivation of Pattern-path Fictive Motion
      • 5.1.2The motivation of Coextension-path Fictive Motion
      • 5.1.3The motivation of Frame-relative fictive motion
    • 5.2Directionality/reversibility of the mappings
    • 5.3Conclusions
  • 6.Conclusion: The Moving-Time vs Frame-relative contrast and the primary-metaphor vs fictive-motion contrast
    • 6.1Reasons for the partial analogy between Moving Time and Frame-relative Fictive Motion
    • 6.2The incompatibility between Moving Time and Frame-relative Fictive Motion
    • 6.3The distinction between primary metaphor and fictive motion, and the classification of fictive motion as metaphor
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00042.moo
References

References

Bender, A., & Beller, S.
(2014) Mapping spatial frames of reference onto time: A review of theoretical accounts and empirical findings. Cognition, 1321, 342–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blomberg, J.
(2015) The expression of non-actual motion in Swedish, French, and Thai. Cognitive Linguistics, 261, 657–696. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Non-actual motion in language and experience. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages (pp. 205–227). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bohnemeyer, J.
(2010) The language-specificity of conceptual structure: Path, fictive motion and time relations. In B. C. Malt & P. Wolff (Eds.), Words and the mind: How words capture human experience (pp. 111–137). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boroditsky, L.
(2000) Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 751, 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brandt, L.
(2013) The communicative mind: A linguistic exploration of conceptual integration and meaning construction. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Caballero, R.
(2009)  form is motion. Dynamic predicates in English architectural discourse. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 277–290). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Metaphorical motion constructions across specialized genres. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages (pp. 229–253). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Casasanto, D., & Jasmin, K.
(2012) The hands of time: Temporal gestures in English speakers. Cognitive Linguistics, 231, 643–674. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
COCA. Corpus of contemporary American English
[URL]
Clark, H.
(1973) Space, time, semantics, and the child. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 27–63). New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S., & Oakley, T.
(2003) Metonymy and conceptual blending. In K.-U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 51–80). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S., & Pagán Cánovas, C.
(2009) Understanding timelines: Conceptual metaphor and conceptual integration. Cognitive Semiotics, 51, 198–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E.
(2014) Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Duffy, S. E., & Feist, M. I.
(2014) Individual differences in the interpretation of ambiguous statements about time. Cognitive Linguistics, 251, 29–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V.
(2013) Language and time: A cognitive linguistics approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Einstein, A.
(1961) Relativity: The special and the general theory. [Translated by Robert W. Lawson.] New York: Three Rivers Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G.
(1994) Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997) Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
(2008) Rethinking metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 53–66). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C.
(1982) Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm: selected papers from SICOL-1981 (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., & Baker, C.
(2010) A frames approach to semantic analysis. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 313–339). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
FrameNet
[URL]
Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, P., & Boronat, C.
(2001) Metaphor is like analogy. In D. Gentner, K. Holyoak, & B. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 199–253). Cambridge (Massachusetts): The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. J.
(1954) The visual perception of objective motion and subjective movement. Psychological Review, 611, 304–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1975) Events are perceivable but time is not. In J. T. Fraser & N. Lawrence (Eds.), The study of time II. New York: Springer-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1986) The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Grady, J.
(1997a) Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
(1997b)  theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 81, 267–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999) A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. In R. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huumo, T.
(2013) Many ways of moving along a path: What distinguishes prepositional and postpositional uses of Finnish path adpositions? Lingua, 1331, 319–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) The grammar of temporal motion: A cognitive grammar account of motion metaphors of time. Cognitive Linguistics, 281, 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izutsu, K., & Izutsu, M. N.
(2016) Temporal scenery: Experiential bases for deictic concepts of time in East Asian languages. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), Conceptualizations of time (pp. 207–242). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1990) The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 39–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M.
(1989) More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar 11. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. N.
(1980) The optic flow field: The foundation of vision. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 290(1038), 169–179.Google Scholar
Levinson, S.
(1994) Vision, shape, and linguistic description: Tzeltal body-part terminology and object description. Linguistics, 321, 791–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Space in language and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matlock, T.
(2004a) The conceptual motivation of fictive motion. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 221–248). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2004b) Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory & Cognition, 321, 1389–1400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Metaphor, simulation, and fictive motion. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 477–489). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y.
(1996a) Subjective motion and English and Japanese verbs. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(2), 183–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996b) Subjective-change expressions in Japanese and their cognitive and linguistic bases. In G. Fauconnier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Spaces, worlds, and grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McGlone, M., & Harding, J.
(1998) Back (or forward?) to the future: The role of perspective in temporal language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 241, 1211–1223.Google Scholar
Moore, K. E.
(2014) The spatial language of time: Metaphor, metonymy and frames of reference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Elaborating time in space: The structure and function of space-motion metaphors of time. Language and Cognition, 1–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newton, I.
(1686) Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica. Royal Society, London.Google Scholar
Özçalişkan, S., Stites, L. J., & Emerson, S. N.
(2017) Crossing the road or crossing the mind: How differently do we move across physical and metaphorical spaces in speech and gesture? In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages (pp. 257–277). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Panther, K.-U.
(Eds.) (2004) Studies in linguistic motivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Richardson, D., & Matlock, T.
(2007) The integration of figurative language and static depictions: An eye movement study of fictive motion. Cognition, 1021, 129–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C. R., Baker, C. F., & Scheffczyk, J.
(2016) FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Available on the FrameNet website ([URL]).
Stickles, E., David, O., Dodge, E., & Hong, J.
(2016) Formalizing contemporary conceptual metaphor theory: A structured repository for metaphor analysis. Constructions and Frames, 8(2), 166–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K. S.
(2007) Grammar in metaphor: a construction grammar account of metaphoric language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E.
(1997) Role and individual interpretations of change predicates. In J. Nuyts & E. Pederson (Eds.), Language and conceptualization (pp. 116–136). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
(2000a) Toward a cognitive semantics: Volume 1, Concept structuring systems. Cambridge (Massachusetts): MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2000b) Toward a cognitive semantics: Volume 2, Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge (Massachusetts): MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2017) The targeting system of language. Cambridge (Massachusetts): MIT Press.Google Scholar
n.d.). More on fictivity. [Handout]
Zinken, J.
(2010) Temporal frames of reference. In V. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition, and space: State of the art and new directions (pp. 479–498). London: Equinox.Google Scholar