LINGUIST List 30.1336
Sun Mar 24 2019
Calls: Cog Sci, Gen Ling, Psycholing, Semantics, Typology/France
Editor for this issue: Everett Green <everettlinguistlist.org>
***************** LINGUIST List Support *****************
Fund Drive 2019
29 years of LINGUIST List!
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
Laure Sarda <laure.sarda
Neglected Aspects of Motion Events Description E-mail this message to a friend
Full Title: Neglected Aspects of Motion Events Description
Short Title: NAMED
Date: 23-May-2019 - 24-May-2019
Location: Paris, France
Contact Person: Laure Sarda
Meeting Email: < click here to access email >
Web Site: http://transfers.ens.fr/named-2019-neglected-aspect-of-motion-events-descriptionon-fictive-motion-in
Linguistic Field(s): Cognitive Science; General Linguistics; Psycholinguistics; Semantics; Typology
Call Deadline: 31-Mar-2019
The second NAMED conference will take place on May, 23-24 2019, at the Ecole Normale Supérieure de Paris. This second conference will specially encourage submission on neglected aspects of fictive motion constructions, although we will also accept papers addressing some neglected aspects of motion description as we did for NAMED 2017.
Fictive motion is defined as the use of dynamic expressions to describe static scenes. For instance, in “The road goes up the mountain”, the road does not move, whereas in “The man goes up the mountain”, the man does move. Fictive motion thus contrasts with actual motion.
The term ‘Fictive motion’ has been coined by Talmy in his reference article Fictive motion in language and “ception” (1996; 2000). Other terms have been used : subjective motion (Langacker 1986; Matsumoto 1996), abstract motion (Langacker 1986), virtual motion (Langacker 1999), non-actual motion (Blomberg & Zlatev 2014), which each convey a particular conception of the phenomenon.
The psychological grounds for fictive motion constructions include, in a very general perspective, our “cognitive bias towards dynamism” in both language and cognition (Talmy 2000: 171–172).
Two main motivations for the use of fictive motion have been reported. First, a phenomenon of enaction, consisting in the projection of the speaker, or another entity, travelling through the figure entity (i.e. the road in the example above). Second, the visual scanning of the figure entity by the speaker or a character (ex : Matlock, 2001, 2004a, 2004b; Rojo et Valenzuela, 2009 ; Stosic et al., 2015). Fictive motion has been considered as a possible “linguistic universal”; it is generally seen by cognitive linguists as providing evidence of “fundamental properties of the human mind” (Blomberg and Zlatev 2014, alluding to Lakoff 1987; Langacker 1987; Lakoff and Johnson 1999).
2nd Call for Papers:
We particularly encourage submissions with a contrastive, corpus, diachronic and/or experimental perspective, addressing the following issues:
- Co-extension paths have been broadly described, much more so than other types such as emanation paths (orientation, shadow, radiation, sensory paths), pattern paths, frame-relative motion, advent paths, access paths: is this list complete? Are there important differences across types, e.g. are only some of them universal?
- What are the differences across languages in the use of fictive motion for the description of static scenes? How do linguistic realizations of fictive motion vary across languages?
- Is there a link between the use of fictive motion in a given language and its typological properties (for instance in terms of the satellite-framed/verb-framed distinction)?
- What are the constraints on the nature of figure and ground in fictive motion constructions? Do they vary across languages?
- Are specific types of motion verbs (e.g. deictic, path, manner of motion verbs) more likely to be used in fictive motion constructions? Is it linked to their spatial or to their aspectual properties? What does it reveal of the structure of the lexicon, or the classification of motion verbs? (cf. Cappelli 2013).
- Is there a continuum of dynamicity of motion verbs, with an impact on their use in fictive motion constructions? What makes a motion verb more or less dynamic?
- What is the actual frequency of Fictive Motion uses with respect to actual motion? How broad is the phenomenon?
- Which constructions (e.g. posture verbs, Stosic et al. 2015) compete with the fictive motion construction?
CNRS, HTL, France
University of Turku | UTU ·School of Languages and Translation Studies
NINJAL (National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics)
- Abstract submission deadline: March 31, 2019
- Notification of acceptance: April 12, 2019
- Conference: May 23-24 2019
We invite abstracts for NAMED 2019 for 30-minute oral presentations (20mn talk + 10 mn questions). Please submit your abstract (in .doc and .pdf) at workshop-named
ens.fr. Abstracts should not exceed 1 pages (excluding references), with 12 point font, single line spacing, and 1” margins.
Arnaud Arslangul (Paris, France)
Michel Aurnague (Toulouse, France)
Benjamin Fagard (Paris, France)
Jean-Michel Fortis (Paris, France)
Anetta Kopecka (Lyon, France)
Claire Moyse (Paris, France)
Tuomas Huumo (Turku, Finland)
Christine Lamarre (Paris, France)
Laure Sarda (Paris, France)
Dejan Stosic (Toulouse, France)
Leonard Talmy (Buffalo, USA)
Emile van der Zee (Lincoln, UK)
Laure Sarda & Benjamin Fagard (Lattice lab, CNRS & ENS, PSL, Université Paris Sorbonne Nouvelle)
Page Updated: 24-Mar-2019