Fictive motion

Fictive motion is the metaphorical motion of an object or abstraction through space (see Ramscar, Boroditsky & Matlock 2009; Matlock 2004; Talmy 2000). Fictive motion has become a subject of study in psycholinguistics and cognitive linguistics. In fictive motion sentences, a motion verb applies to a subject that is not literally capable of movement in the physical world, as in the sentence, "The fence runs along the perimeter of the house." Fictive motion is so called because it is attributed to material states, objects, or abstract concepts, that cannot (sensibly) be said to move themselves through physical space. Fictive motion sentences are pervasive in English and other languages.

History

Cognitive linguist Leonard Talmy discussed many of the spatial and linguistic properties of fictive motion in a book chapter called "Fictive motion in language and 'ception'" (Talmy 1996). He provided further insights in his seminal book, Toward a Cognitive Semantics Vol. 1, in 2000. Talmy began analyzing the semantics of fictive motion in the late 1970s and early 1980s but used the term "virtual motion" at that time (e.g. Talmy 1983).

Fictive motion has since been investigated by cognitive scientists interested in whether and how it evokes dynamic imagery. Methods of investigation have included reading tasks (Matlock 2004), eye-tracking tasks (Matlock & Richardson 2004; Richardson & Matlock 2007), and drawing tasks (Matlock 2006).

Influence on perception of time

A recent avenue of research has focused on fictive motion's influence on perceptions of time. People often speak about time in terms of motion. English speakers may describe themselves as moving through time toward or past events with statements such as "we're entering the holidays" or "we slipped past the due date." They may also talk about events as moving toward or past themselves with statements such as "tough times are approaching us" or "summer vacation has passed" (Boroditsky 2000; Boroditsky & Ramscar 2002). Broadly speaking, metaphorical talk about time borrows from two different perspectives for conceptualizing motion. In the ego-moving metaphor, one progresses along a timeline toward the future, while in the time-moving metaphor, a timeline is conceived as a conveyor belt upon which events move from the future to the past like packages (e.g. Gentner 2001; Lakoff & Johnson 1980; Lakoff 1987).

Interestingly, it appears that not only does thinking about actual motion influence people's judgments about time, but thinking about fictive motion has the same effect (Ramscar, Matlock & Dye 2009; Matlock, Ramscar & Boroditsky 2005), suggesting that thinking about one abstract domain may influence people's understanding of another. This raises the question of whether the influence of fictive motion on people's understanding of time is rooted in a concrete, embodied conception of motion, such that both time and fictive motion are ultimately understood in terms of simulations of concrete experience (e.g. Langacker 1999), or whether the effects of fictive motion are a product of the way that language influences thought (e.g. Slobin 1996).

References

• Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75, 1-28.
• Boroditsky, L., & Ramscar, M. (2002). The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychological Science, 13, 185-188.
• Gentner, D. (2001). Spatial metaphors in temporal reasoning. In M.Gattis (Ed.) Spatial schemas and abstract thought (pp. 203-222). Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999) Philosophy In The Flesh: the Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
• Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter
• Matlock, T. (2004). Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory & Cognition, 32, 1389-1400.
• Matlock, T. (2006). Depicting fictive motion in drawings. In J. Luchenbroers, (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Investigations across languages, fields, and philosophical boundaries. Amsterdam: John H. Benjamins.
• Matlock, T., & Richardson, D. C. (2004). Do eye movements go with fictive motion? Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
• Ramscar, M., Matlock, T., & Dye, M. (2009) Running down the clock: the role of expectation in our understanding of time and motion. Language and Cognitive Processes.
• Ramscar, M., Boroditsky, L., & Matlock, T. (2009) Time, motion, and meaning: The experiential basis of abstract thought. In Kelly S. Mix, Linda B. Smith, and Michael Gasser (eds.), The Spatial Foundations of Language and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Slobin, D. I. (1996). "From 'thought and language' to 'thinking for speaking'". In Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, J. J. Gumperz and S. C. Levinson (eds), 70-96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
• Talmy, Leonard (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics Vol. 1. MA: MIT Press.