“This is, in general, what iconicity
in language is: a metaphorical image-mapping in which the structure of the mean-
ing is understood in terms of the structure of the form of the language presenting
that meaning. Such mappings are possible because of the existence of image-
schemas, such as schemas characterizing bounded spaces (with interiors and exte-
riors), paths, motions along those paths, forces, parts and wholes, centers and pe-
ripheries, and so on. When we speak of the “form of language,” we are under-
standing that form in terms of such image-schemas. Thus, for example, one aspect of sentence structure is given in terms of parts and wholes, that is, the parts of
speech and the higher-level constituents containing them. Other aspects of a sen-
tence’s structure are given in terms of balance, proximity, subordination, sequence,
and so on. The schematic images that allow us to understand such syntactic no-
tions are also used in conceptual structure. It is for this reason that image-
schematic correspondences between form and meaning are possible. The mech-
anism that relates them is the same mapping mechanism used in metaphor.”