Chapter published in:
Motion and Space across Languages: Theory and applications
Edited by Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano
[Human Cognitive Processing 59] 2017
► pp. 205–228

Chapter 7. Non-actual motion in language and experience

| Lund University

Dynamic descriptions of static situations, e.g. The road goes through the forest, have attracted a lot of attention in semantics. In cognitive linguistics, terms such as “fictive motion” and “subjective motion” are often used to describe such sentences. While these terms are taken to be largely synonymous, I argue that they are analytically different, and furthermore point to different possible experiential motivations behind this phenomenon. This leads to the pluralistic and integrative framework of “non-actual motion”. Within this framework, an elicitation study with speakers of Swedish, French, and Thai was designed and conducted. The results suggest that non-actual motion expressions are conventionalized in all three languages. The language-specific resources for expressing actual motion are used, but with elements suggesting actual motion demoted.

Keywords: fictive motion, semantic typology, motion semantics, subjective motion
Published online: 14 August 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.59.09bol
References

References

Barsalou, L. W.
2009 Simulation, situated conceptualization and prediction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Biological Sciences, 364, 128–289. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blomberg, J., & Zlatev, J.
2014 Actual and non-actual motion: Why experientialist semantics needs phenomenology (and vice versa). Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 13(3), 395–418. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blomberg, J.
2014 Motion in language and experience: Actual and non-actual motion in Swedish, French and Thai. Ph.D. Dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar
2015 The expression of non-actual motion in Swedish, French and Thai. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(4), 657–696. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, L.
2009 Subjectivity in the act of representing: The case for subjective motion and change. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 8(4), 573–601. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 The communicative mind: A linguistic exploration of conceptual integration and meaning construction. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J.
1977 The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw, & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing (127–143). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
1979 The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Husserl, E.
[1935] 1975 Experience and Judgement. Evanston, IL: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
1980 Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
1990 Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2001 Dynamicity in grammar. Axiomathes, 12, 7–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 Dynamicity, fictivity and scanning: The imaginative basis of logic and linguistic meaning. In D. Pecher, & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language and thinking (164–197). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 Subjectification, grammaticization, and conceptual archetypes. In A. Athanasiadou, C. Canakis, & B. Cornille (Eds.), Subjectification: Various paths to subjectivity (17–41). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matlock, T.
2004a Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory & Cognition, 32(8), 1389–1400. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004b The conceptual motivation of fictive motion. In G. Radden, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (221–248). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2010 Abstract motion is no longer abstract. Language & Cognition, 2(2), 243–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y.
1996 Subjective motion in English and Japanese. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(2), 183–226. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M.
[1939] 1962 Phenomenology of perception. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Overgaard, S.
2012 Visual perception and self-movement: Another look. In A. Foolen, U. Lüdtke, T. Racine, & J. Zlatev (Eds.), Moving ourselves-Moving others: Motion and emotion in intersubjectivity, consciousness, and language (81–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, D., & Matlock, T.
2007 The integration of figurative language and static depictions: An eye movement study of fictive motion. Cognition, 102(1), 129–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rojo, A., & Valenzuela, J.
2004 Fictive motion in English and Spanish. International Journal of English Studies, 3(2), 123–149.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I.
2004 The many ways to search for a frog: linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist, & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives (219–257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Sonesson, G.
2010 Semiosis and the elusive final interpretant of understanding. Semiotica, 179, 145–258.Google Scholar
Stosić, D., & Sarda, L.
2009 The many ways to be located. In M. Brala Vukanović, & L. Gruic Grmusa (Eds.), Space and time in language and literature (39–60). Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
1983 How language structures space. In J. H. L. Pick, & L. P. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application (225–282). New York: Plenum Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000a Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000b Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tranströmer, T.
1996 April och Tystnad. Sorgegondolen. Stockholm: Albert Bonniers Förlag.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J.
2003 Holistic spatial semantics of Thai. In E. Casad, & G. Palmer (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and non-Indo-European languages (305–336). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J., & Yangklang, P.
2004 A third way of travel: the place of Thai in motion-event typology. In S. Strömqvist, & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives (159–190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

No author info given
2020. Moving Time vs. Frame-relative motion. Constructions and Frames 12:2 Crossref logo
Cappelle, Bert
2020.  In Broader Perspectives on Motion Event Descriptions [Human Cognitive Processing, 69], ► pp. 235 ff. Crossref logo
De Knop, Sabine
2020. The embodied teaching of complex verbal constructions with German placement verbs and spatial prepositions. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 18:1 ► pp. 131 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 august 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.