Advertisement

Conceptual Puzzle Pieces

An Image Schema Experiment on Object Conceptualisation
  • Maria M. Hedblom
  • Oliver KutzEmail author
Conference paper
  • 116 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11939)

Abstract

Image schemas were introduced as mental generalisations learned from the sensorimotor experiences in infancy that in adulthood shape language formation and conceptualisations. So far, little empirical research has been devoted to investigate to which degree image schemas are involved in object conceptualisation more concretely. To address this, this experimental study investigates the relationship between abstract image schemas and their involvement in conceptualisations of common, everyday objects. The experimental set-up asks participants to describe objects using abstract representations of image schemas. The results from the study support the claim that image-schematic thinking is prevalent in the conceptualisation of objects, thus providing empirical evidence for the idea that image schemas can serve as conceptual building blocks for the meaning of objects.

Keywords

Image schemas Affordances Common sense Conceptual structure 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the reviewers for their useful comments. We would also like to thank Mihailo Antović for his assistance regarding data analysis and the study of image schemas. Our thanks also extend to John Bateman, Tony Veale and Rafael Peñaloza for valuable input during discussions on experimental set-up and analysis methods.

References

  1. 1.
    Antović, M.: Musical metaphors in Serbian and Romani children: an empirical study. Metaphor Symb. 24(3), 184–202 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antović, M., Bennett, A., Turner, M.: Running in circles or moving along lines: conceptualization of musical elements in sighted and blind children. Musicae Scientiae 17(2), 229–245 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bennett, B., Cialone, C.: Corpus guided sense cluster analysis: a methodology for ontology development (with examples from the spatial domain). In: Garbacz, P., Kutz, O. (eds.) 8th International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS), Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 267, pp. 213–226. IOS Press (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergen, B.K., Chang, N.: Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In: Östman, J.O., Fried, M. (eds.) Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions, pp. 147–190. John Benjamins Publishing (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Besold, T.R., Hedblom, M.M., Kutz, O.: A narrative in three acts: using combinations of image schemas to model events. Biol. Inspired Cogn. Archit. 19, 10–20 (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Confalonieri, R., Kutz, O.: Blending under deconstruction: the roles of logic, ontology, and cognition in computational concept invention. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. (2019) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Confalonieri, R., et al. (eds.): Concept Invention: Foundations, Implementation Social Aspects and Applications. Computational Synthesis and Creative Systems. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65602-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fauconnier, G., Turner, M.: Conceptual integration networks. Cogn. Sci. 22(2), 133–187 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gibbs, R.W., Colston, H.L.: The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. Cogn. Linguist. (Includes Cogn. Linguist. Bibliogr.) 6(4), 347–378 (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gibson, J.J.: The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1979)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gromann, D., Hedblom, M.M.: Breaking down finance: a method for concept simplification by identifying movement structures from the image schema path-following. In: Proceedings of the Second Joint Ontology Workshops (JOWO), CEUR-WS online proceedings, Annecy, France, vol. 1660 (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gromann, D., Macbeth, J.C.: Crowdsourcing image schemas. In: Proceedings of TriCoLore, CEUR-WS, Bolzano, Italy, vol. 2347 (2019)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hedblom, M.M.: Image Schemas and Concept Invention: Cognitive, Logical, and Linguistic Investigations. Cognitive Technologies, Springer, Heidelberg (2019). ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hedblom, M.M., Gromann, D., Kutz, O.: In, out and through: formalising some dynamic aspects of the image schema containment. In: Proc. 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Pau, France, pp. 918–925 (2018)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hedblom, M.M., Kutz, O., Mossakowski, T., Neuhaus, F.: Between contact and support: introducing a logic for image schemas and directed movement. In: Esposito, F., Basili, R., Ferilli, S., Lisi, F.A. (eds.) AI*IA 2017: Advances in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 256–268 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hedblom, M.M., Kutz, O., Neuhaus, F.: Choosing the right path: image schema theory as a foundation for concept invention. J. Artif. Gen. Intell. 6(1), 22–54 (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hedblom, M.M., Kutz, O., Neuhaus, F.: Image schemas in computational conceptual blending. Cogn. Syst. Res. 39, 42–57 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hedblom, M.M., Kutz, O., Peñaloza, R., Guizzardi, G.: Image Schema Combinations and Complex Events. KI - Künstliche Intelligenz, July 2019. Special Issue on Cognitive Reasoning, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-019-00605-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Johnson, M.: The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kellman, P.J., Spelke, E.S.: Perception of partly occluded objects in infancy. Cogn. Psychol. 15, 483–524 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kövecses, Z.: Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford University Press, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kuhn, W.: An image-schematic account of spatial categories. In: Winter, S., Duckham, M., Kulik, L., Kuipers, B. (eds.) COSIT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4736, pp. 152–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74788-8_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lakoff, G.: Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lakoff, G., Núñez, R.: Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being. Basic Books, New York (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mandler, J.M.: The Foundations of Mind : Origins of Conceptual Thought: Origins of Conceptual Though. Oxford University Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Oakley, T.: Image schema. In: Geeraerts, D., Cuyckens, H. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, pp. 214–235. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Richardson, J.T.E., Caplan, P.J., Crawford, M., Hyde, J.S.: Gender Differences in Human Cognition. Oxford University Press, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thosar, M., et al.: From multi-modal property dataset to robot-centric conceptual knowledge about household objects. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.11114 (2019)
  29. 29.
    Tseng, M.Y.: Exploring image schemas as a critical concept : toward a critical-cognitive linguistic account of image-schematic interactions. J. Lit. Semant. 36, 135–157 (2007)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Turner, M.: An image-schematic constraint on metaphor. In: Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language, pp. 291–306 (1993)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Veale, T., Shutova, E., Klebanov, B.B.: Metaphor: A Computational Perspective. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, London (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Conceptual and Cognitive Modelling Research Group (CORE), KRDB Research Centre for Knowledge and Data, Faculty of Computer ScienceFree University of Bozen-BolzanoBolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations