Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-8bbf57454-s7zjg Total loading time: 0.223 Render date: 2022-01-25T03:20:59.490Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

On defining image schemas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2014

JEAN M. MANDLER*
Affiliation:
Department of Cognitive Science, University of California San Diego
CRISTÓBAL PAGÁN CÁNOVAS
Affiliation:
Institute for Culture and Society, University of Navarra
*
*Address for correspondence: e-mail: Jean Mandler: jmandler@ucsd.edu; Cristóbal Pagán Cánovas: cpaganc@unav.es

Abstract

In this theoretical paper we propose three different kinds of cognitive structure that have not been differentiated in the psychological and cognitive linguistic literatures. They are spatial primitives, image schemas, and schematic integrations. Spatial primitives are the first conceptual building blocks formed in infancy, image schemas are simple spatial stories built from them, and schematic integrations use the first two types to build concepts that include non-spatial elements, such as force and emotion. These different kinds of structure have all come under the umbrella term of ‘image schemas’. However, they differ in their content, developmental origin, imageability, and role in meaning construction in language and in thought. The present paper indicates how preverbal conceptualization needs to be taken into account for a complete understanding of image schemas and their uses. It provides examples to illustrate this influence, the most important of these being the primacy of imageable spatial information.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2014 

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

Aguiar, A., & Baillargeon, R. (1999). 2.5-month-old infants’ reasoning about when objects should and should not be occluded. Cognitive Psychology, 39, 116157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bahrick, L. E., Gogate, L. J., & Ruiz, I. (2002). Attention and memory for faces and actions in infancy: the salience of actions over faces in dynamic events. Child Development, 73, 16291643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bauer, P. J., & Mandler, J. M. (1992). Putting the horse before the cart: the use of temporal order in recall of events by one-year-old children. Developmental Psychology, 28, 441452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergelson, E., & Swingley, D. (2012). At 6−9 months, human infants know the meaning of many common nouns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 32533258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campanella, J., & Rovee-Collier, C. (2005). Latent learning and deferred imitation at 3 months. Infancy, 7, 243262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carver, L. J., & Bauer, P. J. (1999). When the event is more than the sum of its parts: nine-month-olds’ long-term ordered recall. Memory, 7, 147174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casasanto, D., Fotakopoulou, O., & Boroditsky, L. (2010). Space and time in the child’s mind: evidence for a cross-dimensional asymmetry. Cognitive Science, 34, 387405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cattaneo, Z., & Vecchi, T. (2011). Blind vision: the neuroscience of visual impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1973). Space, time, semantics, and the child. In Moore, T. E. (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 2763). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clausner, T. C., & Croft, W. (1999). Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 10, 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S., & Pagán Cánovas, C. (2013). Understanding time lines: conceptual metaphor and conceptual integration. Journal of Cognitive Semantics, V(1/2), 198219.Google Scholar
Csibra, G. (2008). Goal attribution to inanimate agents by 6.5-month-old infants. Cognition, 107, 705717.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Csibra, G., Gergely, G., Bíró, S., Koós, O., & Brockbank, M. (1999). Goal attribution without agency cues: the perception of ‘pure reason’ in infancy. Cognition, 72, 237267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Hevia, M. D., & Spelke, E. S. (2010). Number-space mapping in human infants. Psychological Science, 21, 653660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dewell, Robert (2005). Dynamic patterns of CONTAINMENT. In Hampe, B. (Ed.), From perception to meaning: image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 369394). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1994). Conceptual projection and middle spaces (Research Report 9401). University of California San Diego.
Fauconnier, G, & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2008). Rethinking metaphor. In Gibbs, R. W. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 5766). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frye, D., Rawling, P., Moore, C., & Myers, I. (1983). Object−person discrimination and communication at 3 and 10 months. Developmental Psychology, 19, 303309. Pragmatics, 37, 1595–1614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuhrman, O., McCormick, K., Chen, E., Jiang, H., Shu, D., Mao, S., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). How linguistic and cultural forces shape conceptions of time: English and Mandarin time in 3D. Cognitive Science, 35, 13051328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. (1995). The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 347378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grady, J. E. (1997). Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 267290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grady, J. E. (2005). Image schemas and perception: refining a definition. In Hampe, B. (Ed.), From perception to meaning: image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 3556. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterCrossRef
Guyau, J.-M. (1988 [1890]). The origin of the idea of time. Reprinted In Michon, J. A., Pouthas, V., & Jackson, J. L (Ed.), Guyau and the idea of time. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Haith, M. M. (1980). Rules that babies look by: the organization of visual activity. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hampe, B. (2005). Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics: introduction. In Hampe, B. (Ed.), From perception to meaning: image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 114). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hespos, S. J., & Baillargeon, R. (2001a). Knowledge about containment events in very young children. Cognition, 78, 207245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hespos, S. J., & Baillargeon, R. (2001b). Infants’ knowledge about occlusion and containment events: a surprising discrepancy. Psychological Science, 12, 140147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: the bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. H., & Morton, J. (1991). Biology and cognitive development: the case of face recognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2003). Metaphor and emotion: language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Ortony, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakusta, L., & Landau, B. (2004). Starting at the end: the importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition, 96, 133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lakusta, L., Wagner, L., O’Hearn, K., & Landau, B. (2007). Conceptual foundations of spatial language: evidence for a goal bias in infants’ language learning and development. Language Learning and Development, 3, 179197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, B., & Gleitman, L. R. (1985). Language and experience: evidence from the blind child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Legerstee, M. (1992). A review of the animate−inanimate distinction in infancy: implications for models of social and cognitive knowing. Early Development and Parenting, 1, 5967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslie, A. M. (1982). The perception of causality in infants. Perception, 11, 173186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leslie, A. M. (1994). ToMM, ToBY, and Agency: core architecture and domain specificity. In Hirshfeld, L. A. & Gelman, S. A. (Eds.), Mapping the mind: domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 119148). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, Y., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). When the ordinary seems unexpected: evidence for incremental physical knowledge in young infants. Cognition, 95, 297328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luo, Y., Kaufman, L., & Baillargeon, R. (2009). Young infants’ reasoning about physical events involving inert and self-propelled objects. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 441486.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mandler, G. (1982). Mind and body: psychology of emotion and stress. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Mandler, J. M. (1992). How to build a baby II: conceptual primitives. Psychological Review, 99, 587604.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mandler, J. M. (2004). The foundations of mind: origins of conceptual thought. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mandler, J. M. (2008). On the birth and growth of concepts. Philosophical Psychology, 21, 207230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandler, J. M. (2010). The spatial foundations of the conceptual system. Language and Cognition, 2, 2144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandler, J. M. (2011). A leaner nativist solution to the origin of concepts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 138139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandler, J. M. (2012). On the spatial foundations of the conceptual system and its enrichment. Cognitive Science, 36, 421451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mandler, J. M., & McDonough, L. (1998). Studies in inductive inference in infancy. Cognitive Psychology, 37, 6096.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonough, L., Choi, S., & Mandler, J. M. (2003). Understanding spatial relations: flexible infants, lexical adults. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 229259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, K. (1996). Language in cognitive development: emergence of the mediated mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newcombe, N., Huttenlocher, J., & Learmonth, A. (1999). Infants’ encoding of location in continuous space. Infant Behavior and Development, 22, 483510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Núñez, R. E., & Sweetser, E. (2006). With the future behind them: convergent evidence from Aymara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time. Cognitive Science, 30, 401450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakley, T. (2007). Image schemas. In Geeraerts, D. & Vuyckens, H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 214235). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ozcaliskan, S. (2005). On learning to draw the distinction between physical and metaphorical motion: Is metaphor an early emerging cognitive and linguistic capacity? Journal of Child Language, 32, 291318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papafragou, A., Massey, C., & Gleitman, L. (2007). When English proposes what Greek presupposes: the cross-linguistic encoding of motion events. Cognition, 98, B75–B87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pauen, S. (2000). Early differentiation within the animate domain: Are humans something special? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75, 134151.Google ScholarPubMed
Perone, S., Madole, K. L., Ross-Sheehy, S., Carey, M., & Oakes, L. M. (2008). The relation between infants’ activity with objects and attention. Developmental Psychology, 44, 12421248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piaget, J. (1951). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Quinn, P. C. (2003). Concepts are not just for objects: categorization of spatial relation information by infants. In Rakison, D. R. & Oakes, L. M. (Eds.), Early category and concept development. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Quinn, P. C., Eimas, P. D., & Rosenkrantz, S. L. (1993). Evidence for representations of perceptual similar natural categories by 3-month-old and 4-month-old infants. Perception, 22, 463475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Repacholi, B. M., & Gopnik, A. (1997). Early reasoning about desires: evidence from 14- and 18-month-olds. Developmental Psychology, 33, 1221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rochat, P., Morgan, R., & Carpenter, M. (1997). Young infants’ sensitivity to movement information specifying social causality. Cognitive Development, 12, 537561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santiago, J., Román, A., Ouellet, M., Rodríguez, N., & Pérez-Azor, P. (2010). In hindsight, life flows from left to right. Psychological Research, 74, 5970.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Setoh, P., Wu, D., Baillargeon, R., & Gelman, R. (2013). Young people have biological expectations about animals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 1593715942.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simion, F., Regolin, L., & Bulf, H. (2008). A predisposition for biological motion in the newborn baby. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 809813.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spelke, E. S., Breinlinger, K., Macomber, J., & Jacobson, K. (1992). Origins of knowledge. Psychological Review, 99, 605632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spelke, E. S., & Hespos, S. J. (2002). Conceptual development in infancy: the case of containment. In Stein, N. L., Bauer, P. J., & Rabinowitz, M. (Eds.), Representation, memory, and development: essays in honor of Jean Mandler (pp. 225246). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Srinivasan, N., & Carey, S. (2010). The long and the short of it: on the nature and origin of functional overlap between representations of space and time. Cognition, 116, 217241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strickland, B., & Scholl, B. (in press). Event types in visual cognition: the case of containment and occlusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.
Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1978). On the expression of spatio-temporal relations in language. In Greenberg, J. H. (Ed.), Universals of human language: Vol. 3. Word structure. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Wagner, K., Dobkins, K., & Barner, D. (2013). Slow mapping: color word learning as a gradual inductive process. Cognition, 127, 307317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagner, S., Winner, E., Cicchetti, D., & Gardner, H. (1981). ‘Metaphorical’ mapping in human infants. Child Development, 52, 728731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, S., Baillargeon, R., & Brueckner, L. (2004). Young infants’ reasoning about hidden objects: evidence from violation-of-expectation tasks with test trials only. Cognition, 93, 167198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Widen, S. C., & Russell, J. A. (2003). A closer look at preschoolers’ freely produced labels for facial expressions. Developmental Psychology, 39, 114128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widen, S. C., & Russell, J. A. (2008). Children acquire emotion categories gradually. Cognitive Development, 23, 291312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willatts, P. (1997). Beyond the ‘couch potato’ infant: how infants use their knowledge to regulate action, solve problems, and achieve goals. In Bremner, G., Slater, A., & Butterworth, G. (Eds.), Infant development: recent advances (pp. 109135). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, A. L. (1998). Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor’s reach. Cognition, 69, 134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

On defining image schemas
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

On defining image schemas
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

On defining image schemas
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *