Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-5mwv9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-19T14:32:49.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On defining image schemas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2014

JEAN M. MANDLER  and
CRISTÓBAL PAGÁN CÁNOVAS
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
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

image schemasspatial primitivespreverbal conceptsembodimentconceptual integrationmetaphor
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 510 - 532
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

references

Aguiar, A., & Baillargeon, R. (1999). 2.5-month-old infants’ reasoning about when objects should and should not be occluded. Cognitive Psychology, 39, 116–157.Google 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, 1629–1643.Google Scholar
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, 441−452.Google 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, 3253–3258.Google Scholar
Campanella, J., & Rovee-Collier, C. (2005). Latent learning and deferred imitation at 3 months. Infancy, 7, 243−262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 147–174.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, 387−405.Google Scholar
Cattaneo, Z., & Vecchi, T. (2011). Blind vision: the neuroscience of visual impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1973). Space, time, semantics, and the child. In Moore, T. E. (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 27−63). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clausner, T. C., & Croft, W. (1999). Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 10, 1−31.Google Scholar
Coulson, S., & Pagán Cánovas, C. (2013). Understanding time lines: conceptual metaphor and conceptual integration. Journal of Cognitive Semantics, V(1/2), 198−219.Google Scholar
Csibra, G. (2008). Goal attribution to inanimate agents by 6.5-month-old infants. Cognition, 107, 705–717.Google Scholar
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, 237–267.Google Scholar
De Hevia, M. D., & Spelke, E. S. (2010). Number-space mapping in human infants. Psychological Science, 21, 653−660.Google Scholar
Dewell, Robert (2005). Dynamic patterns of CONTAINMENT. In Hampe, B. (Ed.), From perception to meaning: image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 369–394). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1994). Conceptual projection and middle spaces (Research Report 9401). University of California San Diego.Google Scholar
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. 57–66). 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, 303–309. Pragmatics, 37, 1595–1614.Google 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, 1305–1328.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.Google 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, 347−378.Google Scholar
Grady, J. E. (1997). Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 267−290.Google 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. 35–56. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
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. 1−14). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hespos, S. J., & Baillargeon, R. (2001a). Knowledge about containment events in very young children. Cognition, 78, 207−245.Google Scholar
Hespos, S. J., & Baillargeon, R. (2001b). Infants’ knowledge about occlusion and containment events: a surprising discrepancy. Psychological Science, 12, 140−147.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Ortony, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google 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, 1−33.Google Scholar
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, 179–197.Google 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, 59−67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslie, A. M. (1982). The perception of causality in infants. Perception, 11, 173–186.Google Scholar
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. 119–148). 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, 297–328.Google Scholar
Luo, Y., Kaufman, L., & Baillargeon, R. (2009). Young infants’ reasoning about physical events involving inert and self-propelled objects. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 441−486.Google Scholar
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, 587−604.Google Scholar
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, 207−230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandler, J. M. (2010). The spatial foundations of the conceptual system. Language and Cognition, 2, 21−44.Google Scholar
Mandler, J. M. (2011). A leaner nativist solution to the origin of concepts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 138−139.Google Scholar
Mandler, J. M. (2012). On the spatial foundations of the conceptual system and its enrichment. Cognitive Science, 36, 421−451.Google Scholar
Mandler, J. M., & McDonough, L. (1998). Studies in inductive inference in infancy. Cognitive Psychology, 37, 60−96.Google Scholar
McDonough, L., Choi, S., & Mandler, J. M. (2003). Understanding spatial relations: flexible infants, lexical adults. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 229–259.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (1996). Language in cognitive development: emergence of the mediated mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Newcombe, N., Huttenlocher, J., & Learmonth, A. (1999). Infants’ encoding of location in continuous space. Infant Behavior and Development, 22, 483–510.Google 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, 401–450.Google Scholar
Oakley, T. (2007). Image schemas. In Geeraerts, D. & Vuyckens, H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 214–235). 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, 291−318.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A., Massey, C., & Gleitman, L. (2007). When English proposes what Greek presupposes: the cross-linguistic encoding of motion events. Cognition, 98, B75–B87.Google Scholar
Pauen, S. (2000). Early differentiation within the animate domain: Are humans something special? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75, 134−151.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, 1242–1248.Google Scholar
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, 463–475.Google Scholar
Repacholi, B. M., & Gopnik, A. (1997). Early reasoning about desires: evidence from 14- and 18-month-olds. Developmental Psychology, 33, 12−21.Google Scholar
Rochat, P., Morgan, R., & Carpenter, M. (1997). Young infants’ sensitivity to movement information specifying social causality. Cognitive Development, 12, 537–561.Google Scholar
Santiago, J., Román, A., Ouellet, M., Rodríguez, N., & Pérez-Azor, P. (2010). In hindsight, life flows from left to right. Psychological Research, 74, 59–70.Google Scholar
Setoh, P., Wu, D., Baillargeon, R., & Gelman, R. (2013). Young people have biological expectations about animals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 15937−15942.Google Scholar
Simion, F., Regolin, L., & Bulf, H. (2008). A predisposition for biological motion in the newborn baby. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 809–813.Google Scholar
Spelke, E. S., Breinlinger, K., Macomber, J., & Jacobson, K. (1992). Origins of knowledge. Psychological Review, 99, 605–632.Google Scholar
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. 225–246). 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, 217–241.Google Scholar
Strickland, B., & Scholl, B. (in press). Event types in visual cognition: the case of containment and occlusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49−100.Google 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, 307−317.Google Scholar
Wagner, S., Winner, E., Cicchetti, D., & Gardner, H. (1981). ‘Metaphorical’ mapping in human infants. Child Development, 52, 728−731.Google 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, 167–198.Google Scholar
Widen, S. C., & Russell, J. A. (2003). A closer look at preschoolers’ freely produced labels for facial expressions. Developmental Psychology, 39, 114−128.Google Scholar
Widen, S. C., & Russell, J. A. (2008). Children acquire emotion categories gradually. Cognitive Development, 23, 291–312.Google 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. 109–135). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, A. L. (1998). Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor’s reach. Cognition, 69, 1–34.Google Scholar