In:Motion and Space across Languages: Theory and applications
Edited by Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano
[Human Cognitive Processing 59] 2017
► pp. 205–228
Chapter 7Non-actual motion in language and experience
Published online: 14 August 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.59.09bol
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.59.09bol
Abstract
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, motion semantics, subjective motion, semantic typology
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Background
- 3.Non-actual motion
- 3.1Motion affordances and capacity for self-motion
- 3.2Visual scanning
- 3.3From simulation to imagination
- 3.4Summary
- 4.Method
- 4.1Material
- 4.2Research questions
- 5.Non-actual motion in Swedish, French, and Thai
- 5.1NAM expressions or not?
- 5.2A semantic analysis of NAM expressions
- 5.3Summary
- 6.Conclusion
Notes References
References (32)
Barsalou, L. W. 2009. Simulation, situated conceptualization and prediction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Biological Sciences, 364, 128–289.
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.
Blomberg, J. 2014. Motion in language and experience: Actual and non-actual motion in Swedish, French and Thai. Ph.D. Dissertation, Lund University.
2015. The expression of non-actual motion in Swedish, French and Thai. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(4), 657–696.
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.
2013. The communicative mind: A linguistic exploration of conceptual integration and meaning construction. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
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.
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1990. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
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.
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.
2004b. The conceptual motivation of fictive motion. In G. Radden, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (221–248). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Matsumoto, Y. 1996. Subjective motion in English and Japanese. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(2), 183–226.
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.
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.
Rojo, A., & Valenzuela, J. 2004. Fictive motion in English and Spanish. International Journal of English Studies, 3(2), 123–149.
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.
Sonesson, G. 2010. Semiosis and the elusive final interpretant of understanding. Semiotica, 179, 145–258.
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.
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.
2000b. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cited by (5)
Cited by five other publications
Jia , Junwen
Cappelle, Bert
2020. Looking into visual motion expressions in Dutch, English, and
French. In Broader Perspectives on Motion Event Descriptions [Human Cognitive Processing, 69], ► pp. 235 ff.
Knop, Sabine De
2020. The embodied teaching of complex verbal constructions with German placement verbs and spatial prepositions. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 18:1 ► pp. 131 ff.
Knop, Sabine De
Moore, Kevin Ezra
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 december 2025. 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.
