Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 10:1 (2023) ► pp.85–98

Are metaphorical classes essentially abstract?

ORCID logo | University of Electronic Science and Technology of China
ORCID logo | Chabahar Maritime University
ORCID logo | Universidad de los Andes
ORCID logo | University of Bonn
ORCID logo | University of South Australia, Online

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.

Keywords: abstract concepts, metaphorical classes, semantic associations
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
Published online: 5 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00095.kha
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