Cover not available

Article published In: Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 10:1 (2023) ► pp.85–98

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Are metaphorical classes essentially abstract?

ORCiD logo with link | University of Electronic Science and Technology of China
ORCiD logo with link | Chabahar Maritime University
ORCiD logo with link | Universidad de los Andes
ORCiD logo with link | University of Bonn
ORCiD logo with link | University of South Australia, Online
Published online: 5 October 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00095.kha
Abstract
This article compares abstract concepts and metaphorical classes in order to emphasize the abstract nature of metaphorical classes. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 92–96. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar used the expression “abstract superordinate categories” to refer to metaphorical classes. Drawing on this proposal and George Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar 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, 111, 211–227. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Abstraction in perceptual symbol systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 358(1435), 1177–1187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borghi, A. M., & Binkofski, F. (2014). Words as social Tools: An embodied view on abstract concepts. New York: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2012). Strength of perceptual experience predicts word processing performance better than concreteness or imageability. Cognition, 125(3), 452–465. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 92–96. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97(1), 3–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). How metaphors work. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 401–424). New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M. S., & Manfredi, D. A. (1997). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(1), 50–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Khatin-Zadeh, O., & Vahdat, S. (2015). Abstract and concrete representations in structure-mapping and class-inclusion. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 2(2), 349–360. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Khatin-Zadeh, O., & Khoshsima, H. (2021). Homo-schematic metaphors: A study of metaphor comprehension in three different priming conditions. Journal of Psycholinguist Research, 501, 923–948. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Markman, A. B., & Stilwell, C. H. (2001). Role-governed categories. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 13(4), 329–358. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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, 61, Article e5987. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wiemer-Hastings, K., & Xu, X. (2005). Content differences for abstract and concrete concepts. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 29(5), 719–736. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Khatin-Zadeh, Omid, Jiehui Hu & Hassan Banaruee
2026. Metaphor as a process of propositional or imagistic source-target interaction: A review of five theories. New Ideas in Psychology 80 ► pp. 101217 ff. DOI logo
Khatin-Zadeh, Omid
2025. Metaphorical emergence through propositional and imagistic modes of metaphor processing. Language & Communication 105 ► pp. 209 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue