1887
Volume 12, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

There is an elaborate analogy between Moving Time (composed of primary metaphors; e.g. ) and Frame-relative Fictive Motion (e.g. ). 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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00042.moo
2020-10-30
2020-11-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bender, A., & Beller, S.
    (2014) Mapping spatial frames of reference onto time: A review of theoretical accounts and empirical findings. Cognition, 132, 342–382. 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.016 [Google Scholar]
  2. Blomberg, J.
    (2015) The expression of non-actual motion in Swedish, French, and Thai. Cognitive Linguistics, 26, 657–696. 10.1515/cog‑2015‑0025
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2015-0025 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2017) Non-actual motion in language and experience. InI. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages (pp.205–227). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.59.09bol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.59.09bol [Google Scholar]
  4. Bohnemeyer, J.
    (2010) The language-specificity of conceptual structure: Path, fictive motion and time relations. InB. C. Malt & P. Wolff (Eds.), Words and the mind: How words capture human experience (pp.111–137). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311129.003.0007
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311129.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  5. Boroditsky, L.
    (2000) Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75, 1–28. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00073‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brandt, L.
    (2013) The communicative mind: A linguistic exploration of conceptual integration and meaning construction. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Caballero, R.
    (2009) form is motion. Dynamic predicates in English architectural discourse. InK.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.277–290). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.25.17cab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.17cab [Google Scholar]
  8. (2017) Metaphorical motion constructions across specialized genres. InI. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages (pp.229–253). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.59.10cab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.59.10cab [Google Scholar]
  9. Casasanto, D., & Jasmin, K.
    (2012) The hands of time: Temporal gestures in English speakers. Cognitive Linguistics, 23, 643–674. 10.1515/cog‑2012‑0020
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0020 [Google Scholar]
  10. COCA. Corpus of contemporary American English
    COCA. Corpus of contemporary American English. https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/
  11. Clark, H.
    (1973) Space, time, semantics, and the child. InT. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp.27–63). New York: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑505850‑6.50008‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-505850-6.50008-6 [Google Scholar]
  12. Coulson, S., & Oakley, T.
    (2003) Metonymy and conceptual blending. InK.-U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp.51–80). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.113.06cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.06cou [Google Scholar]
  13. Coulson, S., & Pagán Cánovas, C.
    (2009) Understanding timelines: Conceptual metaphor and conceptual integration. Cognitive Semiotics, 5, 198–219. 10.1515/cogsem.2013.5.12.198
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem.2013.5.12.198 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E.
    (2014) Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Duffy, S. E., & Feist, M. I.
    (2014) Individual differences in the interpretation of ambiguous statements about time. Cognitive Linguistics, 25, 29–54. 10.1515/cog‑2013‑0030
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2013-0030 [Google Scholar]
  16. Evans, V.
    (2013) Language and time: A cognitive linguistics approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107340626
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107340626 [Google Scholar]
  17. Einstein, A.
    (1961) Relativity: The special and the general theory. [Translated byRobert W. Lawson.] New York: Three Rivers Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Fauconnier, G.
    (1994) Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511624582
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624582 [Google Scholar]
  19. (1997) Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139174220
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174220 [Google Scholar]
  20. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
    (2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (2008) Rethinking metaphor. InR. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.53–66). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.005 [Google Scholar]
  22. Fillmore, C.
    (1982) Frame semantics. InLinguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm: selected papers from SICOL-1981 (pp.111–137). Seoul: Hanshin.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Fillmore, C., & Baker, C.
    (2010) A frames approach to semantic analysis. InB. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp.313–339). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. FrameNet
  25. Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, P., & Boronat, C.
    (2001) Metaphor is like analogy. InD. Gentner, K. Holyoak, & B. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp.199–253). Cambridge (Massachusetts): The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/1251.003.0010
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1251.003.0010 [Google Scholar]
  26. Gibson, J. J.
    (1954) The visual perception of objective motion and subjective movement. Psychological Review, 61, 304–314. 10.1037/h0061885
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061885 [Google Scholar]
  27. (1975) Events are perceivable but time is not. InJ. T. Fraser & N. Lawrence (Eds.), The study of time II. New York: Springer-Verlag. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑50121‑0_22
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-50121-0_22 [Google Scholar]
  28. (1986) The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Grady, J.
    (1997a) Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
  30. (1997b) theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 267–290. 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.4.267
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.4.267 [Google Scholar]
  31. (1999) A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. InR. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp.79–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.175.06gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.175.06gra [Google Scholar]
  32. Huumo, T.
    (2013) Many ways of moving along a path: What distinguishes prepositional and postpositional uses of Finnish path adpositions?Lingua, 133, 319–355. 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.05.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2017) The grammar of temporal motion: A cognitive grammar account of motion metaphors of time. Cognitive Linguistics, 28, 1–43. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0015 [Google Scholar]
  34. Izutsu, K., & Izutsu, M. N.
    (2016) Temporal scenery: Experiential bases for deictic concepts of time in East Asian languages. InB. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), Conceptualizations of time (pp.207–242). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  36. (1990) The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image schemas?Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 39–74. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Lakoff, G., & Turner, M.
    (1989) More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  40. Langacker, R.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  42. 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]
  43. Levinson, S.
    (1994) Vision, shape, and linguistic description: Tzeltal body-part terminology and object description. Linguistics, 32, 791–855. 10.1515/ling.1994.32.4‑5.791
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1994.32.4-5.791 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2003) Space in language and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613609
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613609 [Google Scholar]
  45. Matlock, T.
    (2004a) The conceptual motivation of fictive motion. InG. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp.221–248). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. (2004b) Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory & Cognition, 32, 1389–1400. 10.3758/BF03206329
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206329 [Google Scholar]
  47. (2017) Metaphor, simulation, and fictive motion. InB. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.477–489). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316339732.030
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.030 [Google Scholar]
  48. Matsumoto, Y.
    (1996a) Subjective motion and English and Japanese verbs. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(2), 183–226. 10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.183
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.183 [Google Scholar]
  49. (1996b) Subjective-change expressions in Japanese and their cognitive and linguistic bases. InG. Fauconnier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Spaces, worlds, and grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. McGlone, M., & Harding, J.
    (1998) Back (or forward?) to the future: The role of perspective in temporal language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 1211–1223.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Moore, K. E.
    (2014) The spatial language of time: Metaphor, metonymy and frames of reference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.42
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.42 [Google Scholar]
  52. (2016) Elaborating time in space: The structure and function of space-motion metaphors of time. Language and Cognition, 1–62. doi:  10.1017/langcog.2016.6
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2016.6 [Google Scholar]
  53. Newton, I.
    (1686) Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica. Royal Society, London.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 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?InI. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages (pp.257–277). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.59.11ozc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.59.11ozc [Google Scholar]
  55. Radden, G., & Panther, K.-U.
    (Eds.) (2004) Studies in linguistic motivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Richardson, D., & Matlock, T.
    (2007) The integration of figurative language and static depictions: An eye movement study of fictive motion. Cognition, 102, 129–138. 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  57. 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 (framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu).
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 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. 10.1075/cf.8.2.03sti
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.8.2.03sti [Google Scholar]
  59. Sullivan, K. S.
    (2007) Grammar in metaphor: a construction grammar account of metaphoric language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
  60. Sweetser, E.
    (1997) Role and individual interpretations of change predicates. InJ. Nuyts & E. Pederson (Eds.), Language and conceptualization (pp.116–136). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139086677.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139086677.005 [Google Scholar]
  61. Talmy, L.
    (2000a) Toward a cognitive semantics: Volume 1, Concept structuring systems. Cambridge (Massachusetts): MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. (2000b) Toward a cognitive semantics: Volume 2, Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge (Massachusetts): MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. (2017) The targeting system of language. Cambridge (Massachusetts): MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. (n.d.). More on fictivity. [Handout]
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Zinken, J.
    (2010) Temporal frames of reference. InV. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition, and space: State of the art and new directions (pp.479–498). London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00042.moo
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00042.moo
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error