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.
2009Simulation, situated conceptualization and prediction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Biological Sciences, 364, 128–289.
Blomberg, J., & Zlatev, J.
2014Actual and non-actual motion: Why experientialist semantics needs phenomenology (and vice versa). Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 13(3), 395–418.
Blomberg, J.
2014Motion in language and experience: Actual and non-actual motion in Swedish, French and Thai. Ph.D. Dissertation, Lund University.
Blomberg, J.
2015The expression of non-actual motion in Swedish, French and Thai. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(4), 657–696.
Brandt, L.
2009Subjectivity in the act of representing: The case for subjective motion and change. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 8(4), 573–601.
Brandt, L.
2013The communicative mind: A linguistic exploration of conceptual integration and meaning construction. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Gibson, J. J.
1977The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw, & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing (127–143). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Gibson, J. J.
1979The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Husserl, E.
[1935] 1975Experience and Judgement. Evanston, IL: Routledge.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
1980Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Langacker, R. W.
1987Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.
1990Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W.
2001Dynamicity in grammar. Axiomathes, 12, 7–33.
Langacker, R. W.
2005Dynamicity, 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.
Langacker, R. W.
2006Subjectification, grammaticization, and conceptual archetypes. In A. Athanasiadou, C. Canakis, & B. Cornille (Eds.), Subjectification: Various paths to subjectivity (17–41). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Matlock, T.
2004aFictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory & Cognition, 32(8), 1389–1400.
Matlock, T.
2004bThe conceptual motivation of fictive motion. In G. Radden, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (221–248). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Matlock, T.
2010Abstract motion is no longer abstract. Language & Cognition, 2(2), 243–260.
Matsumoto, Y.
1996Subjective motion in English and Japanese. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(2), 183–226.
Merleau-Ponty, M.
[1939] 1962Phenomenology of perception. New York: Humanities Press.
Overgaard, S.
2012Visual 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.
Richardson, D., & Matlock, T.
2007The integration of figurative language and static depictions: An eye movement study of fictive motion. Cognition, 102(1), 129–138.
Rojo, A., & Valenzuela, J.
2004Fictive motion in English and Spanish. International Journal of English Studies, 3(2), 123–149.
Slobin, D. I.
2004The 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.
Sonesson, G.
2010Semiosis and the elusive final interpretant of understanding. Semiotica, 179, 145–258.
Stosić, D., & Sarda, L.
2009The 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.
Talmy, L.
1983How language structures space. In J. H. L. Pick, & L. P. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application (225–282). New York: Plenum Press.
Talmy, L.
2000aToward a cognitive semantics. Vol. I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Talmy, L.
2000bToward a cognitive semantics. Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tranströmer, T.
1996April och Tystnad. Sorgegondolen. Stockholm: Albert Bonniers Förlag.
Zlatev, J.
2003Holistic spatial semantics of Thai. In E. Casad, & G. Palmer (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and non-Indo-European languages (305–336). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Zlatev, J., & Yangklang, P.
2004A 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.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 april 2024. 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.