English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This paper tries to approach fictive motion from the perspective of phenomenology. Different from the research of Talmy, Langacker, Lakoff and Turner, Fauconnier, and Matlock on fictive motion, whose views are popular in this field, the concept of intersubjectivity in phenomenology is introduced, which gives new insights into fictive motion. Intersubjectivity can give more plausible explanations to fictive motion and is regarded as a cognitive motivation of fictive motion sentences. Introduction In recent years, the linguistic phenomenon that the use of sentences with motion verbs denotes states with, at least from surface, no motions has attracted much attention of researchers in cognitive semantics. Eg: (1) That mountain range goes all the way from Canada to Mexico. (2) The road runs through the dessert. (3) Light shone from the sun into the cave. (4) He was uplifted by her smile. In the 4 examples, motion verbs are utilized to denote the motionless objects without life such as mountain ranges, the road, and the light. Light may travel from the perspective of physics, but its motion still is beyond the human vision. This recurrent linguistic phenomenon seems universal in most languages. It was termed as fictive motion [1] and subjective motion [2,3,4] or abstract motion [5] and Non-Actual Motion [6]. This paper will follow Talmy and adopt the term fictive motion since his categorization of fictive motion is widely accepted and has been regarded as the foundation of fictive motion research. According to Talmy, fictive motion is the cognitive bias towards dynamism [1]. But Langacker instead attributes the motion aspect of fictive motion expressions to the subjective motion on the part of the conceptualizer. So, different linguists pose different cognitive mechanisms for fictive motion. This paper will review the widely accepted theories in fictive motion first and then introduces a new concept of intersubjectivity in phenomenology to explain fictive motion expressions.

Fictive Motion and Intersubjectivity in Phenomenology