Skip to main content Accessibility help

On defining image schemas



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.


Corresponding author

*Address for correspondence: e-mail: Jean Mandler:; Cristóbal Pagán Cánovas:


Hide All
Aguiar, A., & Baillargeon, R. (1999). 2.5-month-old infants’ reasoning about when objects should and should not be occluded. Cognitive Psychology, 39, 116157.
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.
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.
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.
Campanella, J., & Rovee-Collier, C. (2005). Latent learning and deferred imitation at 3 months. Infancy, 7, 243262.
Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
Cattaneo, Z., & Vecchi, T. (2011). Blind vision: the neuroscience of visual impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
Clausner, T. C., & Croft, W. (1999). Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 10, 131.
Coulson, S., & Pagán Cánovas, C. (2013). Understanding time lines: conceptual metaphor and conceptual integration. Journal of Cognitive Semantics, V(1/2), 198219.
Csibra, G. (2008). Goal attribution to inanimate agents by 6.5-month-old infants. Cognition, 107, 705717.
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.
De Hevia, M. D., & Spelke, E. S. (2010). Number-space mapping in human infants. Psychological Science, 21, 653660.
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.
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155170.
Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. (1995). The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 347378.
Grady, J. E. (1997). Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 267290.
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 Gruyter
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.
Haith, M. M. (1980). Rules that babies look by: the organization of visual activity. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
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.
Hespos, S. J., & Baillargeon, R. (2001a). Knowledge about containment events in very young children. Cognition, 78, 207245.
Hespos, S. J., & Baillargeon, R. (2001b). Infants’ knowledge about occlusion and containment events: a surprising discrepancy. Psychological Science, 12, 140147.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: the bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Johnson, M. H., & Morton, J. (1991). Biology and cognitive development: the case of face recognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kövecses, Z. (2003). Metaphor and emotion: language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Ortony, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakusta, L., & Landau, B. (2004). Starting at the end: the importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition, 96, 133.
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.
Landau, B., & Gleitman, L. R. (1985). Language and experience: evidence from the blind child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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.
Leslie, A. M. (1982). The perception of causality in infants. Perception, 11, 173186.
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.
Luo, Y., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). When the ordinary seems unexpected: evidence for incremental physical knowledge in young infants. Cognition, 95, 297328.
Luo, Y., Kaufman, L., & Baillargeon, R. (2009). Young infants’ reasoning about physical events involving inert and self-propelled objects. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 441486.
Mandler, G. (1982). Mind and body: psychology of emotion and stress. New York: Norton.
Mandler, J. M. (1992). How to build a baby II: conceptual primitives. Psychological Review, 99, 587604.
Mandler, J. M. (2004). The foundations of mind: origins of conceptual thought. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mandler, J. M. (2008). On the birth and growth of concepts. Philosophical Psychology, 21, 207230.
Mandler, J. M. (2010). The spatial foundations of the conceptual system. Language and Cognition, 2, 2144.
Mandler, J. M. (2011). A leaner nativist solution to the origin of concepts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 138139.
Mandler, J. M. (2012). On the spatial foundations of the conceptual system and its enrichment. Cognitive Science, 36, 421451.
Mandler, J. M., & McDonough, L. (1998). Studies in inductive inference in infancy. Cognitive Psychology, 37, 6096.
McDonough, L., Choi, S., & Mandler, J. M. (2003). Understanding spatial relations: flexible infants, lexical adults. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 229259.
Nelson, K. (1996). Language in cognitive development: emergence of the mediated mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Newcombe, N., Huttenlocher, J., & Learmonth, A. (1999). Infants’ encoding of location in continuous space. Infant Behavior and Development, 22, 483510.
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.
Oakley, T. (2007). Image schemas. In Geeraerts, D. & Vuyckens, H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 214235). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Papafragou, A., Massey, C., & Gleitman, L. (2007). When English proposes what Greek presupposes: the cross-linguistic encoding of motion events. Cognition, 98, B75–B87.
Pauen, S. (2000). Early differentiation within the animate domain: Are humans something special? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75, 134151.
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.
Piaget, J. (1951). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton.
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.
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.
Repacholi, B. M., & Gopnik, A. (1997). Early reasoning about desires: evidence from 14- and 18-month-olds. Developmental Psychology, 33, 1221.
Rochat, P., Morgan, R., & Carpenter, M. (1997). Young infants’ sensitivity to movement information specifying social causality. Cognitive Development, 12, 537561.
Santiago, J., Román, A., Ouellet, M., Rodríguez, N., & Pérez-Azor, P. (2010). In hindsight, life flows from left to right. Psychological Research, 74, 5970.
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.
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.
Spelke, E. S., Breinlinger, K., Macomber, J., & Jacobson, K. (1992). Origins of knowledge. Psychological Review, 99, 605632.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wagner, K., Dobkins, K., & Barner, D. (2013). Slow mapping: color word learning as a gradual inductive process. Cognition, 127, 307317.
Wagner, S., Winner, E., Cicchetti, D., & Gardner, H. (1981). ‘Metaphorical’ mapping in human infants. Child Development, 52, 728731.
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.
Widen, S. C., & Russell, J. A. (2003). A closer look at preschoolers’ freely produced labels for facial expressions. Developmental Psychology, 39, 114128.
Widen, S. C., & Russell, J. A. (2008). Children acquire emotion categories gradually. Cognitive Development, 23, 291312.
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.
Woodward, A. L. (1998). Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor’s reach. Cognition, 69, 134.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Language and Cognition
  • ISSN: 1866-9808
  • EISSN: 1866-9859
  • URL: /core/journals/language-and-cognition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed