Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:31:05.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Abstract motion is no longer abstract

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2014

Teenie Matlock
Teenie Matlock*
Affiliation:
University of California, Merced
*
Correspondence addresses: Teenie Matlock, Cognitive Science Program, School of Social Sciences, Humanities and Arts, University of California, Merced, CA 95343, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dynamic conceptualization is a fundamental notion in cognitive linguistics. Abstract motion is one type of dynamic conceptualization. It is said to structure descriptions of static scenes such as ‘The mountain range goes from Mexico to Canada’, and in doing so, invokes a subjective sense of motion or state change. In recent years, a growing body of experimental research supports this claim. However, additional work is needed to understand the dynamics of abstract motion and the extent to which it generalizes. This paper provides some background on abstract motion and reports two new experiments that investigate two unexplored types of abstract motion, including visual paths and pattern paths. Together, the results indicate that abstract motion plays a central role in language use and understanding.

Keywords

abstract motiondynamic conceptualizationfictive motionmotion verbsperceptual simulationpath prepositionsspatial language
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , June 2010 , pp. 243 - 260
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, S., Matlock, T., Fausey, C. M. & Spivey, M. J.. 2008. On the path to understanding the on-line processing of grammatical aspect. Proceedings of the 30th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. 2253–2258.Google Scholar
Anderson, S., Matlock, T. & Spivey, M. J.. 2010. The role of grammatical aspect in the dynamics of spatial descriptions. Proceedings of spatial cognition 2010. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science/Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence Series. 1198–1203.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. 2008. Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 59. 617–645.Google Scholar
Bergen, B. & Wheeler, K.. 2010. Grammatical aspect and mental simulation. Brain and Language. 150–158.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L. 2000. Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition 75. 1–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boroditsky, L. & Ramscar, M.. 2002. The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychological Science 13. 185–188.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. 1973. Space, time, semantics, and the child. In Moore, T. E. (ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. 27–63. San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehaene, Stanislas. 1997. The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, V. 2004. The structure of time: Language, meaning and temporal cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. 1997. Mappings in language and thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fausey, C. & Matlock, T.. 2010. Can grammar influence voting?Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Portland, Oregon. 1330–1335.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. 2006. Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. & Matlock, T.. 2008. Metaphor, imagination, and simulation: Psycholinguistic evidence. In Gibbs, R. W. (ed.), Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 161–176. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Greenwood, M. & Matlock, T.. 2009. That's the way it goes with fictive motion. Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society. 611.Google Scholar
Hegarty, M. 2004. Mechanical reasoning by mental simulation. Trends in Cognitive Science 8. 280–285.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. M. & Ferreira, F. (eds.). 2004. The integration of language, vision, and action: Eye movements and the visual world. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Huumo, T. 2005. How fictive dynamicity motivates aspect marking: The riddle of the Finnish quasi-resultative construction. Cognitive Linguistics 16. 113–144.Google Scholar
Kourtzi, Z. & Kanwisher, N.. 2000. Activation in human MT/MST by static images with implied motion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12. 48–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Núñez, R.. 2000. Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M.. 1989. More than cool reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1986. Abstract motion. Proceedings of the 12th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 455–471.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Madden, C. J. & Zwaan, R.. 2003. How does verb aspect constrain event representations? Memory and Cognition 31. 663–672.Google Scholar
Madden, C. J. & Therriault, D. J.. 2009. How does verb aspect constrain perceptual representations? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62. 1294–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magliano, J. P. & Schleich, M. C.. 2000. Verb aspect and situation models. Discourse Processes 29. 83–112.Google Scholar
Matlock, T. 2004a. The conceptual motivation of fictive motion. In Radden, G. & Dirven, R. (eds.), Motivation in grammar, 221–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Matlock, T. 2004b. Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory and Cognition 32. 1389–1400.Google Scholar
Matlock, T. 2006. Depicting fictive motion in drawings. In Luchenbroers, J. (ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Investigations across languages, fields, and philosophical boundaries, 67–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matlock, T. In press. The conceptual motivation of aspect. In Radden, G., Koch, P. & Panther, K.-U. (eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon: Cognitive, communicative, perceptual and socio-cultural factors. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Matlock, T., Ramscar, M. & Boroditsky, L.. 2004. The experiential basis of motion language. In da Silva, A. Soares, Torres, A. & Gonçalves, M. (eds.), Linguagem, cultura e cognicao: Estudo de linguistica cognitiva, 43–57. Coimbra: Almedina.Google Scholar
Matlock, T., Ramscar, M. & Boroditsky, L.. 2005. The experiential link between spatial and temporal language. Cognitive Science 29. 655–664.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matlock, T., Ramscar, M. & Srinivasan, M.. 2005. Even the most abstract motion influences temporal understanding. Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society. 2527.Google Scholar
Matlock, T. & Richardson, D. C.. 2004. Do eye movements go with fictive motion?Proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society. 909–914.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. 1996. Subjective motion and English and Japanese verbs. Cognitive Linguistics 7. 183–226.Google Scholar
McGlone, M. S. & Harding, J. L.. 1998. Back (or forward?) to the future: The role of perspective in temporal language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 24(5). 1211–1223.Google Scholar
Mishra, R. 2009. Interaction of language and visual attention: Evidence from production and comprehension. Progress in Brain Research. 277–292.Google Scholar
Núñez, R., Motz, B. A. & Teuscher, U.. 2006. Time after time: The psychological reality of ego- and time-reference-point distinction in metaphorical construals of time. Metaphor and Symbol 21. 133–146.Google Scholar
Pecher, D. & Zwaan, R. A. (eds.). 2005. Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramscar, M., Matlock, T. & Dye, M.. In press. Running down the clock: The role of expectation in our understanding of time and motion. Language and Cognitive Processes.Google Scholar
Richardson, D. C. & Matlock, T. 2007. The integration of figurative language and static depictions: An eye movement study of fictive motion. Cognition 102. 129–138.Google Scholar
Rizzolatti, G. & Sinigaglia, C.. 2008. Mirrors in the brain: How our minds share actions, emotions, and experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rojo, A. & Valenzuela, J.. 2003. Fictive motion in English and Spanish. International Journal of English Studies 3. 123–150.Google Scholar
Saygin, A., McCullough, S., Alač, M. & Emmorey, K.. In press. Modulation of BOLD response in motion-sensitive lateral temporal cortex by real and fictive motion sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.Google Scholar
Schwartz, D. L. & Black, T.. 1999. Inferences through imagined actions: Knowing by simulated doing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 25. 116–136.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. 2008. Relations between paths of motion and paths of vision: A crosslinguistic and developmental exploration. In Gathercole, V. C. Mueller (ed.), Routes to language: Studies in Honor of Melissa Bowerman, 197–221. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Spivey, M. J. 2007. Continuity of mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spivey, M. & Geng, J.. 2001. Oculomotor mechanisms activated by imagery and memory: Eye movements to absent objects. Psychological Research 65. 235–241.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 1983. How language structures space. In Pick, H. & Acredolo, L. P. (eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application, 225–282. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 1996. Fictive motion in language and “ception”. In Bloom, P., Peterson, M. A., Nadel, L. & Garrett, M. F. (eds.), Language and space, 211–276. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, volume I: Conceptual structuring systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, M. K. & Spivey-Knowlton, M. J.. 1996. Eye-tracking. Special issue: A guide to spoken word recognition paradigms. Language and Cognitive Processes 11. 583–588.Google Scholar
Teuscher, U., McQuire, M., Collins, J. & Coulson, S.. 2008. Congruity effects in time and space: Behavioral and ERP measures. Cognitive Science 32. 563–578.Google Scholar
Wallentin, M., Lund, T. E., Østergaard, S., Østergaard, L. & Roepstorff, A.. 2005. Motion verb sentences activate left posterior middle temporal cortex despite static context. NeuroReport 16. 649–652.Google Scholar