Cover not available
Part of
Verb Classes and Aspect
Edited by Elisa Barrajón López, José Luis Cifuentes Honrubia and Susana Rodríguez Rosique
[IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature 9] 2015
► pp. 153–184

Variable aspectual coercion in Spanish fictive motion expressions

Fictive motion expressions blur the distinction between stativity and dynamicity. The paper presents a corpus-based exploration of the variable ways in which structural and procedural knowledge merge in Spanish fictive motion expressions with oriented-motion verbs and manner-of-motion verbs. The metaphorical projection from motion to stativity does not necessarily conform to the aspectual restrictions associated with state descriptions. In addition to the verb’s semantics and the profile of the depicted entity, the degree of dynamicity of the blend is further determined by a range of lexical and grammatical choices. Among them figure the kind of spatial coordinates, grammatical aspect, quantifying and temporal adverbial modifiers, as well as viewing perspective. Per parameter, some factors reinforce the bias towards dynamism, whereas others downgrade it.
Keywords: aspectuality, blending, dynamism, fictive motion, perspective, Spanish
Published online: 25 November 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ivitra.9.08del
References (50)
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1999. “Perceptual Symbol Systems.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 507–569.Google Scholar
. 2002. “Being there conceptually: Simulating categories in preparation for situated action.” In Representation, Memory and Development: Essays in Honor of Jean Mandler, Nancy L. Stein, Patricia J. Bauer, and M. Rabiowitz (eds), 1–15. Mahwah (NJ): Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bertinetto, Pier Marco and Squartini, Mario. 1995. “An attempt at defining the class of ‘gradual completion’ verbs.” In Temporal Reference, Aspect and Actionality. Vol. 1: Semantic and Syntactic Perspectives, P.M. Bertinetto, V. Bianchi, J. Higginbotham, M. Squartini (eds), 11–26. Torino: Roseberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Bosque, Ignacio. 2004 (dir.). REDES. Diccionario combinatorio del español contemporáneo. Madrid: Ediciones SM.Google Scholar
Bosque, Ignacio and Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier. 2009. Fundamentos de sintaxis formal. Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1970. Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: UCP.Google Scholar
Delbecque, Nicole. 1996. “Towards a cognitive account of the use of the prepositions por and para in Spanish.” In Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods, The Expansion of a New Paradigm in Linguistics, Eugene Casad (ed.), 249–318. New York / Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. “Las cópulas ser y estar. Categorización frente a deixis.” Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada. Volumen Monográfico: Estudios cognoscitivos del español. R. Maldonado (ed.), 239–280.Google Scholar
. 2006. Ya: Aclaración cognitiva de su uso y función. Revista Española de Lingüística 36: 43–71.Google Scholar
Delbecque, Nicole and Maldonado, Ricardo. 2011. “Spanish ya. A conceptual pragmatic anchor.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 73–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dewell, Robert B. 2007. “Moving over. The role of systematic semantic processes in defining individual lexemes.” Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 5: 271–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental Spaces. Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: MIT press.Google Scholar
. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles and Turner, Mark. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. and Atkins, B.T.S. 1992. “Towards a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of risk and its neighbors.” In Frames, Fields and Contrasts: new essays in semantics and lexical organization, Adrienne Lehrer and Eva Feder Kittay (eds), 75–102. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
García Fernández, Luis. 1999. “Los complementos adverbiales temporales. La subordinación temporal.” In Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte (dir.), Chapter 48, 3129–3208. Madrid: Espasa / Real Academia Española.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jiménez Delgado, José Miguel and Martínez Vázquez, Rafael. 2011. “Verbos de movimiento virtual en griego antiguo.” EmErita, Revista de Lingüística y Filología Clásica LXXIX (2): 277–300.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind. The Bodily Basis of Meaning. Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor.” In Metaphor and Thought, Andrew Ortony (ed.), 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: UCP.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George and Turner, Mark. 1989. More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1986. “Abstract motion.” Berkeley Linguistics Society 12: 455–471.Google Scholar
. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1991a. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991b. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. and Wilkins, David P. 2006. Grammars of space: explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maslov, Yuriy S. (ed.). 1985. Contrastive Studies in Verbal Aspect. English translation by J. Forsyth. Heidelberg: J.G. Verlag.Google Scholar
Matlock, Teenie. 2004a. “Fictive motion as cognitive simulation.” Memory & Cognition 32: 1389–1400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004b. “The conceptual motivation of fictive motion.” In Studies in Linguistic Motivation, Günter Radden and Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds), 221–248. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2006. “Depicting fictive motion in drawings.” In Cognitive Linguistics Investigations: Across languages, fields and philosophical boundaries, J. Luchenbroers (ed.), 67–85. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Yo. 1996. “Subjective motion and English and Japanese verbs.” Cognitive Linguistics 7 (2): 183–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Méndez Dosuna, Julián. 2009. “Movimiento ficticio en griego antiguo: tras las huellas del viajero (in)visible.” REL 39 (1): 5–32.Google Scholar
Moreno Cabrera, Juan C. 2003. Semántica y pragmática: Sucesos, papeles temáticos y relaciones sintácticas. Madrid: A. Machado Libros.Google Scholar
Morimoto, Yuko. 2001. Los verbos de movimiento. Madrid: Visor Libros.Google Scholar
RAE-AALE. 2009. Nueva Gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Rodenbusch, E. 1911. „Präsentia in perfektischer Bedeutung.“ IF 28: 252–285.Google Scholar
Rojo, Ana and Valenzuela, Javier. 2003. “Fictive Motion in English and Spanish.” International Journal of English Studies 3 (2): 123–149.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Fictive Motion in Spanish: Travellable, non-travellable and path-related information.” In Trends in Cognitive Linguistics: Theoretical and Applied Models, Javier Valenzuela, Ana Rojo and Cristina Soriano (eds), 221–238. Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1983. “How language structures space.” In Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application, Herbert L. Pick, Jr. and Linda P. Acredolo, 225–282. New York: Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. “Path to realization: A typology of event conflation.” Berkeley Linguistics Society 17: 480–519.Google Scholar
. 1996. “Fictive motion in language and ‘ception’.” In Language and space, Paul Bloom, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel and Merrill Garret (eds), 211–276. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2000a. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2000b. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume 2: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tuggy, David. 2007. Schematicity. In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (eds), 82–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vernay, Henri. 1974. Essai sur l’organisation de l’espace par divers systèmes linguistiques. München: Fink.Google Scholar
Wallentin, M., Ellegaard Lund, T., Ostergaard, S. Ostergaard, L. and Roepstorff, A. 2005. “Motion verb sentences activate left posterior middle temporal cortex despite static context.” Neuroreport 16 (6): 649–652. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Delbecque, Nicole
2021. Expresión reflexiva versus no reflexiva del movimiento en español: una cuestión de perspectiva. Verba: Anuario Galego de Filoloxía 48 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 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.