Are metaphorical classes essentially abstract?
This article compares abstract concepts and metaphorical classes in order to emphasize the abstract nature of
metaphorical classes.
Sam Glucksberg (2003) used the expression “abstract superordinate
categories” to refer to metaphorical classes. Drawing on this proposal and George
Lakoff &
Mark Johnson’s (1980) conceptual metaphor theory, this article suggests that metaphorical classes and abstract concepts
share three essential features: (1) members of abstract concepts and metaphorical classes are highly diverse and heterogeneous;
(2) both metaphorical classes and abstract concepts are highly reliant on situations and culture; (3) both metaphorical classes
and abstract concepts are reliant on semantic associations and external concepts rather than intrinsic properties. Therefore, it
may be claimed that metaphorical classes are a special group of abstract concepts with a special type of behavior.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Abstract concepts
- 3.Metaphorical classes and abstract concepts
- 3.1Diversity and heterogeneity
- 3.2Dependence on situations and cultures
- 3.3Reliance on semantic associations and external concepts rather than intrinsic properties
- 4.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
-
References
References (33)
References
Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad
hoc categories. Memory &
Cognition,
11
1, 211–227.
Barsalou, L. W. (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.
Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Abstraction
in perceptual symbol systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences,
358
(1435), 1177–1187.
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.
Borghi, A. M., & Binkofski, F. (2014). Words
as social Tools: An embodied view on abstract concepts. New York: Springer.
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.
Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2012). Strength
of perceptual experience predicts word processing performance better than concreteness or
imageability. Cognition,
125
(3), 452–465.
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.
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.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping:
A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive
Science,
7
(2), 155–170.
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.
Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding
figurative language: From metaphors to
idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Glucksberg, S. (2003). The
psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences,
7
(2), 92–96.
Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding
metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological
Review,
97
(1), 3–18.
Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1993). How
metaphors work. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor
and
thought (pp. 401–424). New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M. S., & Manfredi, D. A. (1997). Property
attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and
Language,
36
(1), 50–67.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor
in culture: Universality and
variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors
we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. E. (2000). Where
mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.
Markman, A. B., & Stilwell, C. H. (2001). Role-governed
categories. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial
Intelligence,
13
(4), 329–358.
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.
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.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental
representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
Wiemer-Hastings, K., & Xu, X. (2005). Content
differences for abstract and concrete concepts. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary
Journal,
29
(5), 719–736.