Moving Time vs. Frame-relative motion
A frame-based account of the distinction between primary metaphor and fictive motion
There is an elaborate analogy between Moving Time (composed of primary metaphors; e.g. Christmas is approaching) and Frame-relative Fictive Motion (e.g. Your destination is approaching). 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.
Keywords: blending, conceptual metaphor, primary metaphor, image metaphor, resemblance-based metaphor, coextension-path, frame-relative, pattern-path, fictive motion, frames, conceptual integration
Published online: 30 October 2020
[ p. 311 ]References
Bender, A., & Beller, S.
Casasanto, D., & Jasmin, K.
COCA. Corpus of contemporary American English
Coulson, S., & Oakley, T.
Coulson, S., & Pagán Cánovas, C.
Duffy, S. E., & Feist, M. I.
Einstein, A.[ p. 312 ]
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
Fillmore, C., & Baker, C.
Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, P., & Boronat, C.
Gibson, J. J.
Izutsu, K., & Izutsu, M. N.
[ p. 313 ]
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M.
Lee, D. N.
McGlone, M., & Harding, J.
Moore, K. E.
Özçalişkan, S., Stites, L. J., & Emerson, S. N.
Radden, G., & Panther, K.-U.
Richardson, D., & Matlock, T.
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C. R., Baker, C. F., & Scheffczyk, J.[ p. 314 ]
(2016) FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Available on the FrameNet website (http://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu).
Stickles, E., David, O., Dodge, E., & Hong, J.
Sullivan, K. S.
n.d.). More on fictivity. [Handout]