Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Choosing the Right Path: Image Schema Theory as a Foundation for Concept Invention Cover

Choosing the Right Path: Image Schema Theory as a Foundation for Concept Invention

Journal of Artificial General Intelligence
Volume 6 (2015): Issue 1 (December 2015)
By:
Open Access
|Dec 2015

References

  1. Aguilar, W., and Pérez y Pérez, R. 2015. Dev E-R: A computational model of early cognitive development as a creative process. Cognitive Systems Research 33:17–41.10.1016/j.cogsys.2014.09.002
    Search in Google Scholar
  2. Ahrens, K., and Say, A. L. 1999. Mapping Image Schemas and Traslating Metaphors. In Proceedings of Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, 1–8.
    Search in Google Scholar
  3. Allen, J., and Hayes, P. 1985. A Common-Sense Theory of Time. In Proceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-85), 528–531.
    Search in Google Scholar
  4. Barsalou, L. W. 2008. Grounded cognition. Annual review of psychology 59:617–645.10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
    Search in Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, B., and Cialone, C. 2014. Corpus Guided Sense Cluster Analysis: a methodology for ontology development (with examples from the spatial domain). In Garbacz, P., and Kutz, O., eds., 8th International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS), volume 267 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 213–226. IOS Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  6. Blackburn, P.; de Rijke, M.; and Venema, Y. 2001. Modal Logic. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107050884
    Search in Google Scholar
  7. Boroditsky, L. 2000. Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition 75(1):1–28.10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6
    Search in Google Scholar
  8. Brugman, C., and Lakoff, G. 1988. Cognitive Topology and Lexical Networks. In Stephen Small, Gary Cottrell, M. T., ed., Lexical ambiguity resolution. 477–508.10.1016/B978-0-08-051013-2.50022-7
    Search in Google Scholar
  9. Chrisley, R. 2003. Embodied artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 149:131–150.10.1016/S0004-3702(03)00055-9
    Search in Google Scholar
  10. Clausner, T. C., and Croft, W. 1999. Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics 10(1):1–31.10.1515/cogl.1999.001
    Search in Google Scholar
  11. Cohn, A. G., and Renz, J. 2007. Qualitative Spatial Representation and Reasoning. In van Harmelen et al., F., ed., Handbook of Knowledge Representation. Oxford: Elsevier. 551–596.
    Search in Google Scholar
  12. Davidson, D. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. In Rescher, N., ed., The logic of decision and action. 81–94.
    Search in Google Scholar
  13. Fauconnier, G., and Turner, M. 1998. Conceptual Integration Networks. Cognitive Science 22(2):133–187.10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1
    Search in Google Scholar
  14. Fauconnier, G., and Turner, M. 2003. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. Basic Books.
    Search in Google Scholar
  15. Feldman, J., and Narayanan, S. 2004. Embodied meaning in a neural theory of language. Brain and Language 89(2):385–392.10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00355-9
    Search in Google Scholar
  16. Forbus, K.; Falkenhainer, B.; and Gentner, D. 1989. The structure-mapping engine. Artificial Intelligence 41:1–63.10.1016/0004-3702(89)90077-5
    Search in Google Scholar
  17. Gallese, V., and Lakoff, G. 2005. The Brain’s concepts: the role of the Sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive neuropsychology 22(3):455–79.10.1080/0264329044200031021038261
    Search in Google Scholar
  18. Gärdenfors, P. 2007. Embodiment in Cognition and Culture, volume 71 of Advances in Consciousness Research. John Benjamins Publishing Company. chapter Cognitive semantics and image schemas with embodied forces, 57–76.
    Search in Google Scholar
  19. Gentner, D. 1983. Structure mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7(2):155–170.10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3
    Search in Google Scholar
  20. Gibson, J. J. 1977. The theory of affordances, in Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing. Towards an Ecological Psychology. In Shaw, R., and Bransford, J., eds., Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology. Hillsdale: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 67–82.
    Search in Google Scholar
  21. Goguen, J. A., and Harrell, D. F. 2010. Style: A Computational and Conceptual Blending-Based Approach. In Argamon, S., and Dubnov, S., eds., The Structure of Style: Algorithmic Approaches to Understanding Manner and Meaning. Berlin: Springer. 147–170.10.1007/978-3-642-12337-5_12
    Search in Google Scholar
  22. Goldin, G. A. 2001. Counting on the metaphorical. Nature 413(6851):18–19.10.1038/35092607
    Search in Google Scholar
  23. Grüninger, M.; Hahmann, T.; Hashemi, A.; Ong, D.; and Ozgovde, A. 2012. Modular First-Order Ontologies Via Repositories. Applied Ontology 7(2):169–209.10.3233/AO-2012-0106
    Search in Google Scholar
  24. Hedblom, M. M.; Kutz, O.; and Neuhaus, F. 2014. On the cognitive and logical role of image schemas in computational conceptual blending. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Cognition (AIC-2014), Torino, Italy, November 26th–27th, volume Volume 1315 of CEUR-WS.
    Search in Google Scholar
  25. Hedblom, M. M.; Kutz, O.; and Neuhaus, F. 2015. Image Schemas as Families of Theories. In Besold, T. R.; Kühnberger, K.-U.; Schorlemmer, M.; and Smaill, A., eds., Proceedings of the Workshop “Computational Creativity, Concept Invention, and General Intelligence” 2015, volume 2 of Publications of the Institute of Cognitive Science, 19–33. Institute of Cognitive Science.
    Search in Google Scholar
  26. Johanson, M., and Papafragou, A. 2014. What does children’s spatial language reveal about spatial concepts? Evidence from the use of containment expressions. Cognitive science 38(5):881–910.10.1111/cogs.1210624641514
    Search in Google Scholar
  27. Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind. The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reasoning. The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
    Search in Google Scholar
  28. Kamp, H. 1979. Instants, events and temporal discourse. In Bäuerle, R.; Schwarze, C.; and von Stechow, A., eds., Semantics from Different Points of View. Springer, Berlin. 376–417.
    Search in Google Scholar
  29. Knauff, M.; Rauh, R.; and Renz, J. 1997. A cognitive assessment of topological spatial relations: Results from an empirical investigation. In Hirtle, S. C., and Frank, A. U., eds., Spatial Information Theory: A Theoretical Basis for GIS, volume 1329 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer. 193–206.
    Search in Google Scholar
  30. Koestler, A. 1964. The Act of Creation. Macmillan.
    Search in Google Scholar
  31. Kövecses, Z. 2010. Metaphor:A Practical Introduction. Oxford University Press, USA.
    Search in Google Scholar
  32. Kuhn, W. 2002. Modeling the Semantics of Geographic Categories through Conceptual Integration. In Proceedings of GIScience 2002, 108–118. Springer.10.1007/3-540-45799-2_8
    Search in Google Scholar
  33. Kuhn, W. 2007. An Image-Schematic Account of Spatial Categories. In Winter, S.; Duckham, M.; Kulik, L.; and Kuipers, B., eds., Spatial Information Theory, volume 4736 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer. 152–168.
    Search in Google Scholar
  34. Kutz, O.; Mossakowski, T.; Hois, J.; Bhatt, M.; and Bateman, J. 2012. Ontological Blending in DOL. In Besold, T.; Kühnberger, K.-U.; Schorlemmer, M.; and Smaill, A., eds., Computational Creativity, Concept Invention, and General Intelligence, Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop C3GI@ECAI, volume 01-2012. Montpellier, France: Publications of the Institute of Cognitive Science, Osnabrück.
    Search in Google Scholar
  35. Kutz, O.; Bateman, J.; Neuhaus, F.; Mossakowski, T.; and Bhatt, M. 2014a. E pluribus unum: Formalisation, Use-Cases, and Computational Support for Conceptual Blending. In Besold, T. R.; Schorlemmer, M.; and Smaill, A., eds., Computational Creativity Research: Towards Creative Machines, Thinking Machines. Atlantis/Springer.10.2991/978-94-6239-085-0_9
    Search in Google Scholar
  36. Kutz, O.; Neuhaus, F.; Mossakowski, T.; and Codescu, M. 2014b. Blending in the Hub—Towards a collaborative concept invention platform. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computational Creativity.
    Search in Google Scholar
  37. Kutz, O.; Mossakowski, T.; and Lücke, D. 2010. Carnap, Goguen, and the Hyperontologies: Logical Pluralism and Heterogeneous Structuring in Ontology Design. Logica Universalis 4(2):255–333. Special Issue on ‘Is Logic Universal?’.10.1007/s11787-010-0020-3
    Search in Google Scholar
  38. Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. Basic Books.
    Search in Google Scholar
  39. Lakoff, G., and Núñez, R. 2000. Where Mathematics Comes from: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics Into Being. New York: Basic Books.
    Search in Google Scholar
  40. Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    Search in Google Scholar
  41. Louwerse, M. M., and Jeuniaux, P. 2010. The linguistic and embodied nature of conceptual processing. Cognition 114(1):96–104.10.1016/j.cognition.2009.09.00219818435
    Search in Google Scholar
  42. Mandler, J. M., and Pagán Cánovas, C. 2014. On defining image schemas. Language and Cognition 0:1–23.10.1017/langcog.2014.14
    Search in Google Scholar
  43. Mandler, J. M. 1992. How to build a baby: II. Conceptual primitives. Psychological review 99(4):587–604.10.1037/0033-295X.99.4.5871454900
    Search in Google Scholar
  44. Mandler, J. M. 2004. The Foundations of Mind : Origins of Conceptual Thought: Origins of Conceptual Though. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1111/j.1467-7687.2004.00369.x
    Search in Google Scholar
  45. Mandler, J. M. 2008. On the Birth and Growth of Concepts. Philosophical Psychology 21(2):207–230.10.1080/09515080801980179
    Search in Google Scholar
  46. Menzel, C. 2011. Knowledge representation, the World Wide Web, and the evolution of logic. Synthese 182:269–295.10.1007/s11229-009-9661-2
    Search in Google Scholar
  47. Morgenstern, L. 2001. Mid-Sized Axiomatizations of Commonsense Problems: A Case Study in Egg Cracking. Studia Logica 67:333–384.10.1023/A:1010512415344
    Search in Google Scholar
  48. Mossakowski, T.; Kutz, O.; Codescu, M.; and Lange, C. 2013. The Distributed Ontology, Modeling and Specification Language. In Del Vescovo, C.; Hahmann, T.; Pearce, D.; and Walther, D., eds., Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Modular Ontologies (WoMO-13), volume 1081. CEUR-WS.
    Search in Google Scholar
  49. Mossakowski, T.; Codescu, M.; Neuhaus, F.; and Kutz, O. 2015. The Road to Universal Logic–Festschrift for 50th birthday of Jean-Yves Beziau, Volume II. Studies in Universal Logic. Birkhäuser. chapter The distributed ontology, modelling and specification language - DOL.10.1007/978-3-319-15368-1_21
    Search in Google Scholar
  50. Mossakowski, T.; Kutz, O.; and Codescu, M. 2014. Ontohub: A semantic repository for heterogeneous ontologies. In Proc. of the Theory Day in Computer Science (DACS-2014). Satellite workshop of ICTAC-2014.
    Search in Google Scholar
  51. Mossakowski, T.; Lange, C.; and Kutz, O. 2012. Three Semantics for the Core of the Distributed Ontology Language. In Grüninger, M., ed., 7th International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS), Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  52. Mossakowski, T.; Maeder, C.; and Lüttich, K. 2007. The Heterogeneous Tool Set. In Grumberg, O., and Huth, M., eds., Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. 13th International Conference, TACAS 2007, Held as Part of the Joint European Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2007 Braga, Portugal, March 24 - April 1, 2007. Proceedings, volume 4424 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 519–522. Springer.
    Search in Google Scholar
  53. Nayak, S., and Mukerjee, A. 2012. Concretizing the image schema: How semantics guides the bootstrapping of syntax. In 2012 IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning and Epigenetic Robotics, ICDL 2012.
    Search in Google Scholar
  54. Oakley, T. 2010. Image Schema. In Geeraerts, D., and Cuyckens, H., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 214–235.
    Search in Google Scholar
  55. Ontañón, S., and Plaza, E. 2010. Amalgams: A formal approach for combining multiple case solutions. In Case-Based Reasoning. Research and Development. Springer. 257–271.10.1007/978-3-642-14274-1_20
    Search in Google Scholar
  56. Parson, T. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. MIT Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  57. Pereira, F. C., and Cardoso, A. 2003. Optimality Principles for Conceptual Blending: A First Computational Approach. AISB Journal 1(4).
    Search in Google Scholar
  58. Prior, A. N. 1967. Past, Present and Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198243113.001.0001
    Search in Google Scholar
  59. Regier, T. 1996. The Human Semantic Potential: Spatial Language and Constrained Connectionism. The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/3608.001.0001
    Search in Google Scholar
  60. Rohrer, T. 2005. Image Schemata in the Brain. In Hampe, B., and Grady, J. E., eds., From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics, volume 29 of Cognitive Linguistics Research. Walter de Gruyter. 165–196.
    Search in Google Scholar
  61. Schiralli, M., and Sinclair, N. 2003. A Constructive Response to ‘Where Mathematics Comes From’. Educational Studies in Mathematics 52:79–91.10.1023/A:1023673520853
    Search in Google Scholar
  62. Schmidt, M.; Krumnack, U.; Gust, H.; and Khnberger, K.-U. 2014. Heuristic-Driven Theory Projection: An Overview. In Prade, H., and Richard, G., eds., Computational Approaches to Analogical Reasoning: Current Trends, Computational Intelligence 548. Springer-Verlag.10.1007/978-3-642-54516-0_7
    Search in Google Scholar
  63. Schorlemmer, M.; Smaill, A.; Kühnberger, K.-U.; Kutz, O.; Colton, S.; Cambouropoulos, E.; and Pease, A. 2014. COINVENT: Towards a Computational Concept Invention Theory. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computational Creativity.
    Search in Google Scholar
  64. Schwering, A.; Krumnack, U.; Kühnberger, K.-U.; and Gust, H. 2009. Syntactic Principles of Heuristic-Driven Theory Projection. Cognitive Systems Research 10(3):251–269.10.1016/j.cogsys.2008.09.002
    Search in Google Scholar
  65. St. Amant, R.; Morrison, C. T.; Chang, Y.-H.; Cohen, P. R.; and Beal, C. 2006. An image schema language. In International Conference on Cognitive Modeling (ICCM), 292–297.
    Search in Google Scholar
  66. Tettamanti, M.; Buccino, G.; Saccuman, M. C.; Gallese, V.; Danna, M.; Scifo, P.; Fazio, F.; Rizzolatti, G.; and Perani, D. 2005. Listening to action-related sentences activates fronto-parietal motor circuits. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 273–281.10.1162/089892905312496515811239
    Search in Google Scholar
  67. Turner, M. 2007. The Way We Imagine. In Roth, I., ed., Imaginative Minds - Proceedings of the British Academy. Oxford: OUP. 213–236.10.5871/bacad/9780197264195.003.0010
    Search in Google Scholar
  68. Turner, M. 2014. The Origin of Ideas: Blending, Creativity, and the Human Spark. Oxford University Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  69. Van Benthem, J. F. A. K. 1983. The Logic of Time. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
    Search in Google Scholar
  70. Veale, T., and Keane, M. T. 1992. Conceptual Scaffolding: a Spatially Founded Meaning Representation for Metaphor Comprehension. Computational Intelligence 8(3):494–519.10.1111/j.1467-8640.1992.tb00377.x
    Search in Google Scholar
  71. Veale, T.; Feyaerts, K.; and Forceville, C. 2013. E Unis Pluribum: Using Mental Agility to Achieve Creative Duality in Word, Image and Sound. In Creativity and the Agile Mind: A Multi-Disciplinary Study of a Multi-Faceted Phenomenon (Applications of Cognitive Linguistics). 37–57.10.1515/9783110295290.37
    Search in Google Scholar
  72. Vernon, D. 2014. Artificial Cognitive Systems: A Primer. MIT Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  73. Voorhees, B. 2004. Embodied Mathematics: Comments on Lakoff and Núñez. Journal of Consciousness Studies 11(9):83–88.
    Search in Google Scholar
  74. Walton, L., and Worboys, M. 2009. An Algebraic Approach to Image Schemas for Geographic Space. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Spatial Information Theory (COSIT), 357–370.
    Search in Google Scholar
  75. Wierzbicka, A. 1996. Semantics : Primes and Universals: Primes and Universals. Oxford University Press, UK.
    Search in Google Scholar
  76. Wilson, N. L., and Gibbs, R. W. 2007. Real and imagined body movement primes metaphor comprehension. Cognitive science 31(4):721–731.10.1080/1532690070139996221635315
    Search in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jagi-2015-0003 | Journal eISSN: 1946-0163
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 21 - 54
Submitted on: Aug 16, 2015
Accepted on: Nov 26, 2015
Published on: Dec 30, 2015
Published by: Artificial General Intelligence Society
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 times per year
Keywords:
image schemas,
grounded cognition,
computational creativity,
concept invention,
conceptual blending
Related subjects:
Computer sciences,
Artificial intelligence

© 2015 Maria M. Hedblom, Oliver Kutz, Fabian Neuhaus, published by Artificial General Intelligence Society
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 6 (2015): Issue 1 (December 2015)Next article