Fictive Motion and Visualisation: Dynamic Spatial Perception in Turkish

Öz

This study investigates fictive motion (FM) expressions in Turkish, focusing on how static spatial relationships are described dynamically through language. FM, a linguistic phenomenon where static scenes are described with motionrelated terms (e.g., "The road winds through the valley"), stimulates mental simulation and enhances spatial visualisation. Using a drawing experiment, sixty native Turkish speakers were presented with twelve pairs of fictive and nonfictive sentences to illustrate their interpretations. Statistical analysis confirmed significant differences in seven of the twelve pairs, highlighting the role of motion-implying verbs in expanding spatial perception. Results show that FM expressions lead to larger and more extended visual descriptions, supporting the idea that FM facilitates vivid mental simulations of motion, even when describing stationary scenes. These findings align with cognitive linguistic theories such as Langacker’s virtuality (1999), Talmy’s typology of FM (2000) and Matlock’s mental simulation (2004) by contributing to the understanding of FM in a verbframed language like Turkish. By examining FM through visual representation, this study adds to the cross-linguistic research on FM, highlighting the role of language in shaping spatial conceptualisation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fictive motion
• mental simulation
• Turkish
• spatial conceptualisation
• cognitive linguistics

Kaynakça

1. Blomberg, J., & Zlatev, J. (2014). Actual and non-actual motion: Why experientialist semantics needs phenomenology (and vice versa). Phenomenology and the cognitive sciences, 13, 395-418. google scholar
2. Cacciari, C., Bolognini, N., Senna, I., Pellicciari, M. C., Miniussi, C., & Papagno, C. (2011). Literal, fictive and metaphorical motion sentences preserve the motion component of the verb: A TMS study. Brain and Language, 119(3), 149-157. google scholar
3. Duong, B. (2021). Fictive motion: Some models in cognitive linguistics. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 8(1), 2003979. google scholar
4. Egorova, E., & Purves, R. S. (2018). Frame-relative Constructions in the Description of Motion. In Proceedings of Workshops and Posters at the 13th International Conference on Spatial Information Theory (COSIT 2017) 13 (pp. 227-233). Springer International Publishing. google scholar
5. Fauconnier, G., and Turner, M. (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books. google scholar
6. Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. google scholar
7. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. google scholar
8. Langacker, R. W. (1990). Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. google scholar

9. Langacker, R. W. (1999). Virtual reality. Studies inthe Linguistic Sciences, 29(2), 77-103. google scholar
10. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (2012). Approximative Spaces and the Tolerance Threshold in Communication. International Journal of Cognitive Linguistics, 2(2), 165-183. google scholar
11. Matlock, T. (2004). Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory & Cognition 32(8): p.1389-1400. google scholar
12. Matlock, T. (2006). Depicting fictive motion in drawings. In J. Luchenbroers (ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Investigations across languages, fields, and philosophical boundaries, 67-85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. google scholar
13. Matlock, T. (2017). Metaphor, Simulation, and Fictive Motion. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 477-490). chapter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
14. Matsumoto, Y. (1996). Subjective motion and English and Japanese verbs. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(2), 183-226. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.183 google scholar
15. Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and perception. Harvard University Press. google scholar
16. Rojo, A. and Valenzuela, J. (2004). Fictive motion in English and Spanish. International Journal of English Studies 3(2): p. 123-149. google scholar
17. Romero Lauro, L. J., Mattavelli, G., Papagno, C., & Tettamanti, M. (2013). She runs, the road runs, my mind runs, bad blood runs between us: Literal and figurative motion verbs: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 83, 361-371. google scholar
18. Stosic, D. and Sarda, L. (2009). The many ways to be located: The expression of fictive motion in French and Serbian. In M. Brala Vukovic and L. Gruic Grmusa (eds.), Space and Time in Language and Literature (pp. 39-60). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. google scholar
19. Stosic, D., Fagard, B., Sarda, L., & Colin, C. (2015). Does the road go up the mountain? Fictive motion between linguistic conventions and cognitive motivations. Cognitive processing, 16, 221-225. google scholar
20. Talmy, L. (1975). Semantics and syntax of motion. In J. P. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 4, pp. 181-238). Academic Press. google scholar
21. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics (Vols. 1-2). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. google scholar
22. Tesniere, L. (1959). Elements de Syntaxe Structurale. Paris: Klincksieck. google scholar
23. Tomczak, E., and Ewert, A. (2015). Real and Fictive Motion Processing in Polish L2 Users of English and Monolinguals: Evidence for Different Conceptual Representations. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 49-65. google scholar
24. Topraksoy, A. (2022). Motion Predicates In Turkish: A Morpho-Syntactic Treatment. Unpublished PhD Dissertation: Hacettepe University Press. google scholar
25. Walinski, J. T. (2018). Verbs in fictive motion. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Eödzkiego google scholar