Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T10:48:38.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Motion Mappings: An Example

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Gilles Fauconnier
Gilles Fauconnier
Affiliation:
Department of Cognitive Science, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0515, USA.
Get access

Abstract

Because of the attention given to overt language structure at the expense of associated cognitive constructions, the importance of domain mappings in theories of meaning and language has too often been overlooked. This paper gives a brief outline of the general issues, and studies one intriguing example in more depth: how we talk and think about the cultural notion of schedule in terms of a motion schema with moving points on imaginary scales. At the abstract level considered, it turns out that ‘strange’ reflexives occurring in grammatical constructions linked to this phenomenon are triggered by the same double target configuration found in cases of metonymy, counterfactuals, and mental space connections.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , December 1991 , pp. 107 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

REFERENCES

Churchland, P. S. 1986. Neurophilosophy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. 1980. What metaphors Mean. In Platts, M. (ed.), Reference, Truth and Reality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. 1985. Mental Spaces. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.5Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. 1988. Quantifiers, Roles and Domains. In Eco, U. et al., (eds.), Meaning and Mental Representation. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. 1990. Domains and Connections. Cognitive Linguistics 1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. 1985. Frames and the Semantics of Understanding. Quaderni de Semantica VI.2.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. 1983. Structure-mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy. Cognitive Science 7, 155–170.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, D., Clossman, G. & Meredith, M. 1982.Shakespeare's Plays Weren't Written by Him, But by Someone Else of the Same Name: An Essay on Intensionality and Frame-based Knowledge Representation Systems. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. 1987. Metaphors for Interface Design. ICS Report 8703, UCSD.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. 1989. More than Cool Reason. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. to appear. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II.Google Scholar
Murray, E. A. & Mishkin, M. 1985. Amygdalectomy impairs crossmodal association in monkeys. Science 228, 604–606.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norman, D. 1988. The Psychology of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Nunberg, G. 1978. The Pragmatics of Reference. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Sereno, M. 1990. Language and the Primate Brain. Center for Research in Language Newsletter, Vol. 4, no. 4, UCSD.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: The Mind-as-Body Metaphor in Semantic Structure and Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. 1986. Death is the Mother of Beauty. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Turner, M. 1991. Reading Minds. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar