Sensory Schema: From Sensation to Knowledge

Authors

  • Wes Raykowski

    Arts, Education and Law, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v8i1.12785
Received: 18 November 2025 | Revised: 8 December 2025 | Accepted: 9 December 2025 | Published Online: 6 January 2026

Abstract

How do we know we used the right word in a sentence? The standard answer invokes grammatical rules, context, usage, and logic—but this article argues that the process of reasoning is guided by sensations. Human individuals experience sensations—not the molecular or neural mechanisms that produce them. Therefore, meaning arises from the sensations that words prompt, not from words themselves. Thinking operates through patterns of sensations, most below conscious awareness, while those that rise to consciousness guide the process by signaling alignment or conflict with patterns from past experiences. To explain this process, the article proposes the sensory schema framework, which investigates how sensations are organized at a more fundamental level than image schemas and conceptual metaphors in cognitive linguistics. Analysis across diverse domains—language, mathematics, science, art, and everyday behavior—reveals that sensory experience is inherently structured as products of intensity and extent, the core mechanism by which embodiment shapes conceptual knowledge. This cross-domain consistency demonstrates that patterns cognitive linguistics identifies within language reflect universal organizational principles of sensory experience. The article synthesizes core ideas from previously published works and demonstrates how the framework generates testable predictions for empirical research while offering applications in language acquisition, computational linguistics, and clinical assessment.

Keywords:

sensory schema,; sensory products; intensity × extent,; embodied cognition,; experiential grounding,; sensory simulation

References

[1] Barsalou, L.W., 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 22(4), 577–660.

[2] Lakoff, G., Johnson, M., 1980. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA.

[3] Lakoff, G., Johnson, M., 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books: New York, NY, USA.

[4] Johnson, M., 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA.

[5] Raykowski, W., 2018. Layers and levels: What a column of water tells us about human cognition. Cognitive Semantics. 4(1), 104–133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-00401005

[6] Raykowski, W., 2019. Is there such a thing as orthogonyms? Cognitive Semantics. 5(2), 201–226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-00502002

[7] Raykowski, W., 2022. Sensory schema: From sensory contrasts to antonyms. Cognitive Semantics. 8(2), 240–274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-bja10027

[8] Raykowski, W., 2014. Conceptual Understructure of Human Experience: Volume 1 – Thesis. CreateSpace: North Charleston, SC, USA.

[9] Evans, V., Green, M., 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: London, UK; Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, UK.

[10] Paradis, C., 2008. Configurations, construals and change: Expressions of degree. English Language and Linguistics. 12(2), 317–343.

[11] Mandler, J.M., 2004. The Foundations of Mind: Origins of Conceptual Thought. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.

[12] Langacker, R.W., 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, USA.

[13] Gibbs, R.W., 2006. Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

[14] Bergen, B.K., 2012. Louder Than Words: The New Science of How the Mind Makes Meaning. Basic Books: New York, NY, USA.

[15] Talmy, L., 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Volume II. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA.

[16] Zwaan, R.A., Taylor, L.J., 2006. Seeing, acting, understanding: Motor resonance in language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 135(1), 1–11.

[17] Kaschak, M.P., Glenberg, A.M., 2000. Constructing meaning: The role of affordances and grammatical constructions in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language. 43(3), 508–529.

[18] Gallese, V., Lakoff, G., 2005. The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system. Cognitive Neuropsychology. 22(3–4), 455–479.

[19] Kambe, G., Rayner, K., Duffy, S.A., 2001. Global context effects on processing lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Memory & Cognition. 29(2), 363–372. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194931

[20] Rayner, K., 1998. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin. 124(3), 372–422. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372

[21] Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., Pulvermüller, F., 2004. Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron. 41(2), 301–307. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00838-9

[22] Pulvermüller, F., 2005. Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 6(7), 576–582. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1706

[23] Altarriba, J., Bauer, L.M., 2004. The distinctiveness of emotion concepts: A comparison between emotion, abstract, and concrete words. American Journal of Psychology. 117(3), 389–410.

[24] Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D.P., Lewis, W., et al., 2004. Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology. 48(4), 422–488. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2003.09.001

[25] Levelt, W.J.M., Roelofs, A., Meyer, A.S., 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 22(1), 1–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99001776

[26] Raykowski, W., 2024. From sensations to contrast, opposition and numbers. Forum for Linguistic Studies. 6(4), 231–253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59400/fls.v6i4.6780

Downloads

How to Cite

Raykowski, W. (2026). Sensory Schema: From Sensation to Knowledge. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 8(1), 18–44. https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v8i1.12785