Article published In:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 10:1 (2023) ► pp.8598
References (33)
References
Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 11 1, 211–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1987). The instability of graded structure: Implications for the nature of concepts. In U. Neisser (Ed.), Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization (pp. 101–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2003). Abstraction in perceptual symbol systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 358 (1435), 1177–1187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W., & Wiemer-Hastings, K. (2005). Situating abstract concepts. In D. Pecher & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking (pp. 129–163). New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borghi, A. M., & Binkofski, F. (2014). Words as social Tools: An embodied view on abstract concepts. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borghi, A. M., Binkofski, F., Castelfranchi, C., Cimatti, F., Scorolli, C., & Tummolini, L. (2017). The challenge of abstract concepts. Psychological Bulletin, 143 (3), 263–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2012). Strength of perceptual experience predicts word processing performance better than concreteness or imageability. Cognition, 125 (3), 452–465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crutch, S. J., & Warrington, E. K. (2010). The differential dependence of abstract and concrete words upon associative and similarity-based information: Complementary semantic interference and facilitation effects. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 27 (1), 46–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gathigia, M. G., Wang, R., Shen, M., Tirado, C., Tsaregorodtseva, O., Kathin-Zadeh, O., Minervino, R., & Marmolejo-Ramos, F. (2018). A cross-linguistic study of metaphors of death. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 5 (2), 359–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7 (2), 155–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D., & Boroditsky, L. (2001). Individuation, relativity, and early word learning. In M. Bowerman & S. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 215–256). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7 (2), 92–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97 (1), 3–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993). How metaphors work. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 401–424). New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S., Manfredi, D. A., & McGlone, M. S. (1997). Metaphor comprehension: How metaphors create categories. In T. B. Wards, S. M. Smith & J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 327–350). Washington: American Psychology Association. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M. S., & Manfredi, D. A. (1997). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36 (1), 50–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S., Newsome, M. R., & Goldvarg, Y. (2001). Inhibition of the literal: Filtering metaphor-irrelevant information during metaphor comprehension. Metaphor and Symbol, 16 (3–4), 277–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khatin-Zadeh, O., & Vahdat, S. (2015). Abstract and concrete representations in structure-mapping and class-inclusion. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 2 ( 2 ), 349–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khatin-Zadeh, O., & Khoshsima, H. (2021). Homo-schematic metaphors: A study of metaphor comprehension in three different priming conditions. Journal of Psycholinguist Research, 50 1, 923–948. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khatin-Zadeh, O., Banaruee, H., Khoshsima, H., & Marmolejo-Ramos, F. (2017). The role of motion concepts in understanding non-motion concepts. Behavioral Sciences, 7 (4), Article 84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khatin-Zadeh, O., Khoshsima, H., Yarahmadzehi, N., & Marmolejo-Ramos, F. (2019). The impact of metaphorical prime on metaphor comprehension processes. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 39 (3), 375–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khatin-Zadeh, O., Eskandari, Z., Banaruee, H., & Marmolejo-Ramos, F. (2019). Abstract metaphorical classes: A perspective from distributed models of conceptual representations. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 50 (2), 108–113.Google Scholar
Khatin-Zadeh, O., Eskandari, Z., Bakhshizadeh-Gashti, Y., Vahdat, S., & Banaruee, H. (2019). An algebraic perspective on abstract and concrete domains. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 6 (2), 354–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Markman, A. B., & Stilwell, C. H. (2001). Role-governed categories. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 13 (4), 329–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marmolejo-Ramos, F., Khatin-Zadeh, O., Yazdani-Fazlabadi, B., Tirado, C., & Sagi, E. (2017). Embodied concept mapping: Blending structure-mapping and embodiment theories. Pragmatics & Cognition, 24 (2), 164–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazzuca, C., Lugli, L., Benassi, M., Nicoletti, R., & Borghi, A. M. (2018). Abstract, emotional and concrete concepts and the activation of mouth-hand effectors. PeerJ, 6 1, Article e5987. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76 (1), 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiemer-Hastings, K., & Xu, X. (2005). Content differences for abstract and concrete concepts. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 29 (5), 719–736. DOI logoGoogle Scholar