Cognitive Processing

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 283–296 | Cite as

The embodied nature of medical concepts: image schemas and language for pain

  • Juan Antonio Prieto Velasco
  • Maribel Tercedor Sánchez
Research Report


Cognitive linguistics assumes that knowledge is both embodied and situated as far as it is acquired through our bodily interaction with the world in a specific environment (e.g. Barsalou in Lang Cogn Process 18:513–562, 2003; Connell et al. in PLoS One 7:3, 2012). Therefore, embodiment provides an explanation to the mental representation and linguistic expression of concepts. Among the first, we find multimodal conceptual structures, like image schemas, which are schematic representations of embodied experiences resulting from our conceptualization of the surrounding environment (Tercedor Sánchez et al. in J Spec Transl 18:187–205, 2012). Furthermore, the way we interact with the environment and its objects is dynamic and configures how we refer to concepts both by means of images and lexicalizations. In this article, we investigate how image schemas underlie verbal and visual representations. They both evoke concepts based on exteroception, interoception and proprioception which can be lexicalized through language. More specifically, we study (1) a multimodal corpus of medical texts to examine how image schemas lexicalize in the language of medicine to represent specialized concepts and (2) medical pictures to explore the depiction of image-schematic concepts, in order to account for the verbal and visual representation of embodied concepts. We explore the concept pain, a sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, using corpus analysis tools (Sketch Engine) to extract information about the lexicalization of underlying image schemas in definitions and defining contexts. Then, we use the image schemas behind medical concepts to consistently select images which depict our experience of pain and the way we understand it. Finally, such lexicalizations and visualizations will help us assess how we refer to pain both verbally and visually.


Image schemas Embodiment Knowledge visualization Medical concepts 



This work was carried out while Dr Prieto Velasco was a visiting researcher at the University of Manchester with the support of a research Grant by the Spanish Ministry of Education (CAS12/00005) in the framework of the R&D project VariMed (FFI2011-23120). I would like to express my gratitude to Dr Lynott and the colleagues of the Decision and Cognitive Sciences Research Centre and the Embodied Cognition Laboratory at the University of Manchester for their valuable and constructive suggestions to this research work.


  1. Auvray M, Myin E, Spence C (2010) The sensory-discriminative and affective-motivational aspects of pain. Touch Temp Pleas Pain Special Issue Neurosci Biobehav Rev 34:214–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aziz-Zadeh L, Casasanto D, Feldman J, Saxe R, Talmy L (2008) Discovering the conceptual primitives. In: Love BC, McRae K, Sloutsky VM (eds.) Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society 27–28. Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TXGoogle Scholar
  3. Barsalou LW (2003) Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Lang Cogn Process 18:513–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barsalou LW (2008) Grounded cognition. Annu Rev Psychol 59:617–645PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barsalou LW, Santos A, Simmons WK, Wilson CD (2008) Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In: de Vega M, Glenberg A, Graesser AC (eds) Symbols, embodiment, and meaning. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 309–326Google Scholar
  6. Connell L, Lynott D, Dreyer F (2012) A functional role for modality-specific perceptual systems in conceptual representations. PLoS One 7:3Google Scholar
  7. Croft W, Cruse A (2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cuenca MJ, Hilferty J (1999) Introducción a la lingüística cognitiva. Ariel, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  9. Evans V, Green M (2006) Cognitive linguistics: an introduction. Edinburgh University Press, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  10. Faber P (ed) (2012) A cognitive linguistics view of terminology and specialized language. De Gruyter Mouton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Galinski C, Picht H (1997) Graphic and other semiotic forms of knowledge representation in terminology management. In: Wright SE, Budin G (eds) Handbook of terminology management, vol 1. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 42–61Google Scholar
  12. Goldman A, De Vignemont F (2009) Is social cognition embodied? Trends Cogn Sci 13(4):154–159Google Scholar
  13. Gottlieb H (2005) Multidimensional translation: semantics turned semiotics. In: Gerzymisch-Arbogast H, Nauert S Proceedings EU high level scientific conferences, Marie Curie Euroconferences MuTra: challenges of multidimensional translation. Saarbrücken 2–6 May 2005 Saarland Museum Modern Gallery, SaarbrückenGoogle Scholar
  14. Hostetter AB, Alibali M (2008) Visible embodiment: gestures as simulated action. Psychon B Rev 15(3):495–514Google Scholar
  15. Huang X, Huang H, Liao B, Xu C (2013) An ontology-based approach to metaphor cognitive computation. Mind Mach 23:105–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ISO 10241-1 (2011) Terminological entries in standards. Part 1: general requirements and examples of presentation. International Organization for Standardization, GeneveGoogle Scholar
  17. ISO 704 (2000) Terminology work: principles and methods. International Organization for Standardization, GeneveGoogle Scholar
  18. ISO 704 (2009) Terminology work: principles and methods. International Organization for Standardization, GeneveGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson M (1987) The body in the mind: the bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  20. Kilgarriff A, Rychly P, Smrz P, Tugwell D (2004) The Sketch Engine. Proc EURALEX 2004, Lorient, France; 105–116.
  21. Kress G (2010) Multimodality: a social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Lakoff G (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Louwerse M, Connell L (2011) A taste of words: linguistic context and perceptual simulation predict the modality of words. Cognitive Sci 35(2):381–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Louwerse M, Jeuniaux P (2008) Language comprehension is both embodied and symbolic. In: de Vega M, Glenberg A, Graesser AC (eds) Symbols, embodiment, and meaning. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 309–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Louwerse M, Jeuniaux P (2010) The linguistic and embodied nature of conceptual processing. Cognition 114:96–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Louwerse M, Zwaan R (2009) Language encodes geographical information. Cognitive Sci 33:51–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Louwerse M, Cai Z, Hu X, Ventura M, Jeuniaux P (2006) Cognitively inspired natural language based knowledge representations: further explorations of Latent semantic analysis. Int J Artif Intell Tools 15(1021):1–20Google Scholar
  28. Lynott D, Connell L (2010) Embodied conceptual combination. Front Psychol 1(212):1–14Google Scholar
  29. Mandler JM (2004) The foundations of mind: origins of conceptual thought. Oxford University Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  30. Melzack R, Casey KL (1968) Sensory, motivational and central control determinants of chronic pain: a new conceptual model. In: Kenshalo DR (ed) The skin senses: Proceedings of the first international symposium on the skin senses. Florida State University in Tallahassee, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Halloran KL, Smith BA (eds) (2011) Multimodal studies: exploring issues and domains. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Pickering MJ, Garrod S (2009) Prediction and embodiment in dialogue. Eur J Soc Psychol 39:1162–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pollatos O, Füstös J, Critchley HD (2012) On the generalised embodiment of pain: how interoceptive sensitivity modulates cutaneous pain perception. Pain 153:1680–1686PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Prieto Velasco JA (2008) Información gráfica y grados de especialidad en el discurso científico-técnico: un estudio de corpus. Dissertation, University of GranadaGoogle Scholar
  35. Prieto Velasco JA (2013) A corpus-based approach to the multimodal analysis of specialized knowledge. Lang Resour Eval 47(2):399–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Prieto Velasco JA, Faber P (2012) Graphical information. In: Faber P (ed) A cognitive linguistics view of terminology and specialized language. De Gruyter Mouton, Boston, pp 225–248Google Scholar
  37. Prieto Velasco JA, López Rodríguez CI (2009) Managing graphic information in terminological knowledge bases. Terminology 15(2):179–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Przybyszewski AW (2010) Logical rules of visual brain: from anatomy through neurophysiology to cognition. Cogn Syst Res 11(1):53–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Richardson DC, Spivey MJ, Barsalou LW, MCRae K (2003) Spatial representations activated during real time comprehension of verbs. Cogn Sci 27:767–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rohrer T (2009) Image schemata in the brain. In: Hampe B (ed) From perception to meaning: image schemas in cognitive linguistics. Mouton De Gruyer, NewYorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Talmy L (1983) How language structures space. In: Herbert L, Pick Jr, Acredolo L (eds) Spatial orientation: theory, research, and application, Plenum Pres, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Talmy L (2003) The representation of spatial structure in spoken and signed language. In: Emmor K (ed) Perspectives on classifier constructions in Sign language. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 69–195Google Scholar
  43. Temmerman R (2000) Towards new ways in terminology description. The sociocognitive approach. Amsterdam, John BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Temmerman R, Kerrremans K (2003) Termontography: ontology building and the sociocognitive approach to terminology description. In: Hajičová, E, Kotěšovcová A, Mírovský J. (eds) Proceedings of CIL17, Matfyzpress, MFF UK (CD-ROM). Prague, Czech RepublicGoogle Scholar
  45. Tercedor Sánchez M (2011) The cognitive dynamics of terminological variation. Terminology 17(2):181–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tercedor Sánchez M, Ureña Gómez-Moreno JM, Prieto Velasco JA (2012) Metaphoric and metonymic processes in terminology. J Spec Transl 18:187–205Google Scholar
  47. Williams LW, Huang JY, Bargh JA (2009) The scaffolded mind: higher mental processes are grounded in early experience of the physical world. Eur J Soc Psychol 39:1257–1267PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zwaan RA (2009) Mental simulation in language comprehension and social cognition. Eur J Soc Psychol 39:1142–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zwaan RA, Stanfield RA, Yaxley RH (2002) Language comprehenders mentally represent the shape of objects. Psychol Sci 13:168–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan Antonio Prieto Velasco
    • 1
  • Maribel Tercedor Sánchez
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Philology and TranslationUniversity Pablo de OlavideSevilleSpain
  2. 2.Department of Translation and InterpretingUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations