Skip to main content
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: ,   and    
Open Access
|Dec 2015
References

References

  1. Aguilar, W., and Pérez y Pérez, R. 2015. Dev E-R: A computational model of early cognitive development as a creative process.33:17–41.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  2. Ahrens, K., and Say, A. L. 1999. Mapping Image Schemas and Traslating Metaphors. In, 1–8.
    Search in Google Scholar
  3. Allen, J., and Hayes, P. 1985. A Common-Sense Theory of Time. In, 528–531.
    Search in Google Scholar
  4. Barsalou, L. W. 2008. Grounded cognition.59:617–645.
    Open DOISearch 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.,, volume 267 of, 213–226. IOS Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  6. Blackburn, P.; de Rijke, M.; and Venema, Y. 2001.. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  7. Boroditsky, L. 2000. Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors.75(1):1–28.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  8. Brugman, C., and Lakoff, G. 1988. Cognitive Topology and Lexical Networks. In Stephen Small, Gary Cottrell, M. T., ed.,. 477–508.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  9. Chrisley, R. 2003. Embodied artificial intelligence.149:131–150.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  10. Clausner, T. C., and Croft, W. 1999. Domains and image schemas.10(1):1–31.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  11. Cohn, A. G., and Renz, J. 2007. Qualitative Spatial Representation and Reasoning. In van Harmelen et al., F., ed.,. Oxford: Elsevier. 551–596.
    Search in Google Scholar
  12. Davidson, D. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. In Rescher, N., ed.,. 81–94.
    Search in Google Scholar
  13. Fauconnier, G., and Turner, M. 1998. Conceptual Integration Networks.22(2):133–187.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  14. Fauconnier, G., and Turner, M. 2003.. Basic Books.
    Search in Google Scholar
  15. Feldman, J., and Narayanan, S. 2004. Embodied meaning in a neural theory of language.89(2):385–392.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  16. Forbus, K.; Falkenhainer, B.; and Gentner, D. 1989. The structure-mapping engine.41:1–63.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  17. Gallese, V., and Lakoff, G. 2005. The Brain’s concepts: the role of the Sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge.22(3):455–79.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  18. Gärdenfors, P. 2007., volume 71 of. 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.7(2):155–170.
    Open DOISearch 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.,. 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.,. Berlin: Springer. 147–170.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  22. Goldin, G. A. 2001. Counting on the metaphorical.413(6851):18–19.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  23. Grüninger, M.; Hahmann, T.; Hashemi, A.; Ong, D.; and Ozgovde, A. 2012. Modular First-Order Ontologies Via Repositories.7(2):169–209.
    Open DOISearch 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, volume Volume 1315 of.
    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.,, volume 2 of, 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.38(5):881–910.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  27. Johnson, M. 1987.. The University of Chicago Press.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  28. Kamp, H. 1979. Instants, events and temporal discourse. In Bäuerle, R.; Schwarze, C.; and von Stechow, A., eds.,. 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.,, volume 1329 of. Springer. 193–206.
    Search in Google Scholar
  30. Koestler, A. 1964.. Macmillan.
    Search in Google Scholar
  31. Kövecses, Z. 2010.. Oxford University Press, USA.
    Search in Google Scholar
  32. Kuhn, W. 2002. Modeling the Semantics of Geographic Categories through Conceptual Integration. In, 108–118. Springer.
    Open DOISearch 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.,, volume 4736 of. 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.,, 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.,, Thinking Machines. Atlantis/Springer.
    Open DOISearch 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.
    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.4(2):255–333. Special Issue on ‘Is Logic Universal?’.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  38. Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. 1999.. Basic Books.
    Search in Google Scholar
  39. Lakoff, G., and Núñez, R. 2000.. New York: Basic Books.
    Search in Google Scholar
  40. Lakoff, G. 1987.. The University of Chicago Press.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  41. Louwerse, M. M., and Jeuniaux, P. 2010. The linguistic and embodied nature of conceptual processing.114(1):96–104.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  42. Mandler, J. M., and Pagán Cánovas, C. 2014. On defining image schemas.0:1–23.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  43. Mandler, J. M. 1992. How to build a baby: II. Conceptual primitives.99(4):587–604.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  44. Mandler, J. M. 2004.. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  45. Mandler, J. M. 2008. On the Birth and Growth of Concepts.21(2):207–230.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  46. Menzel, C. 2011. Knowledge representation, the World Wide Web, and the evolution of logic.182:269–295.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  47. Morgenstern, L. 2001. Mid-Sized Axiomatizations of Commonsense Problems: A Case Study in Egg Cracking.67:333–384.
    Open DOISearch 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.,, volume 1081. CEUR-WS.
    Search in Google Scholar
  49. Mossakowski, T.; Codescu, M.; Neuhaus, F.; and Kutz, O. 2015.. Studies in Universal Logic. Birkhäuser. chapter The distributed ontology, modelling and specification language - DOL.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  50. Mossakowski, T.; Kutz, O.; and Codescu, M. 2014. Ontohub: A semantic repository for heterogeneous ontologies. In. 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.,, 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.,, volume 4424 of, 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.
    Search in Google Scholar
  54. Oakley, T. 2010. Image Schema. In Geeraerts, D., and Cuyckens, H., eds.,. 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. Springer. 257–271.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  56. Parson, T. 1990.MIT Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  57. Pereira, F. C., and Cardoso, A. 2003. Optimality Principles for Conceptual Blending: A First Computational Approach.1(4).
    Search in Google Scholar
  58. Prior, A. N. 1967.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  59. Regier, T. 1996.. The MIT Press.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  60. Rohrer, T. 2005. Image Schemata in the Brain. In Hampe, B., and Grady, J. E., eds.,, volume 29 of. Walter de Gruyter. 165–196.
    Search in Google Scholar
  61. Schiralli, M., and Sinclair, N. 2003. A Constructive Response to ‘Where Mathematics Comes From’.52:79–91.
    Open DOISearch 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 Intelligence 548. Springer-Verlag.
    Open DOISearch 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.
    Search in Google Scholar
  64. Schwering, A.; Krumnack, U.; Kühnberger, K.-U.; and Gust, H. 2009. Syntactic Principles of Heuristic-Driven Theory Projection.10(3):251–269.
    Open DOISearch 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, 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.273–281.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  67. Turner, M. 2007. The Way We Imagine. In Roth, I., ed.,. Oxford: OUP. 213–236.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  68. Turner, M. 2014.. Oxford University Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  69. Van Benthem, J. F. A. K. 1983.. 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.8(3):494–519.
    Open DOISearch 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. 37–57.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  72. Vernon, D. 2014.. MIT Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  73. Voorhees, B. 2004. Embodied Mathematics: Comments on Lakoff and Núñez.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, 357–370.
    Search in Google Scholar
  75. Wierzbicka, A. 1996.. 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.31(4):721–731.
    Open DOISearch 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 issues 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.

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