Volume 6, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Looking at isomorphic constructs from an algebraic perspective, this article suggests that every concrete construct is understood by reference to an underlying abstract schema in the mind of comprehender. The complex form of every abstract schema is created by the gradual development of its elementary form. Throughout the process of cognitive development, new features are added to the elementary form of abstract schema, which leads to gradual formation of a fully-developed abstract schema. Every developed abstract schema is the underlying source for understanding an infinite number of concrete isomorphic constructs. It is suggested that the process of the mapping of base domain (base construct) unto target domain (target construct) is conducted and mediated by an abstract domain. This abstract domain, which is free from concrete features of base and target, is isomorphic to both base and target domains. To describe the mediatory role of this abstract domain, it might be argued that the chain process of understanding a less familiar domain in terms of a relatively more familiar domain (salience imbalance model) cannot continue infinitely. This chain must stop at some point. This point is the abstract domain, which is isomorphic to base and target domains.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D.
    (1999) Metaphor comprehension: From comparison to Categorization. InM. Hahn & S. C. Stoness (Eds.), Proceedings of twenty-first annual conference of cognitive science society (pp.90–95). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. D., & Gentner, D.
    (1989) The structure-mapping engine: Algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence, 41, 1–63. 10.1016/0004‑3702(89)90077‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(89)90077-5 [Google Scholar]
  3. Fraleigh, J. B.
    (2003) A First Course in Abstract Algebra (7th edition).
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Gentner, D.
    (1983) Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170. 10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3 [Google Scholar]
  5. Gibbs, R. W.
    (2011) Evaluating conceptual metaphor theory. Discourse Process, 48(8), 529–562. 10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103 [Google Scholar]
  6. Indurkhya, B.
    (1987) Approximate semantic transference: A computational theory of metaphor and analogy. Cognitive Science, 11, 445–480. 10.1207/s15516709cog1104_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1104_3 [Google Scholar]
  7. Judson, T. W. [Google Scholar]
  8. Khatin-Zadeh, O., & Vahdat, S.
    (2015) Abstract and concrete representations in structure-mapping and class-inclusion. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 2(2), 349–360. 10.1075/cogls.2.2.07kha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.2.2.07kha [Google Scholar]
  9. Khatin-Zadeh, O., Vahdat, S., & Yazdani-Fazlabadi, B.
    (2016) An Algebraic Perspective on Implicit and Explicit Knowledge. Cognitive Linguistics Studies, 3(1), 151–162. 10.1075/cogls.3.1.08kha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.3.1.08kha [Google Scholar]
  10. Kitty, E. F., & Lehrer, A.
    (1981) Semantic fields and the structure of metaphor. Studies in Language, 5, 31–63. 10.1075/sl.5.1.03kit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.5.1.03kit [Google Scholar]
  11. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (2003) Metaphors We Live By. London: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  13. Moss, H. E., Tyler, L. K., & Taylor, K. I.
    (2007) Conceptual structure. InG. Gaskell (Ed.), Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp.217–234). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ortony, A.
    (1979) Metaphor, language, and thought. InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp.1–19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ortony, A., Vondruska, R. J., Foss, M. A., & Jones, L. E.
    (1985) Salience, similes, and the asymmetry of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 569–594. 10.1016/0749‑596X(85)90047‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(85)90047-6 [Google Scholar]
  16. Taylor, K. I., Devereux, B. J., & Tyler, L. K.
    (2011) Conceptual structure: Towards an integrated neurocognitive account. Language and Cognitive processes, 26(9), 1368–1401. 10.1080/01690965.2011.568227
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.568227 [Google Scholar]
  17. Tyler, L. K., & Moss, H. E.
    (2001) Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 244–252. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(00)01651‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01651-X [Google Scholar]
  18. Verbrugge, R. R., & McCarrell, N. S.
    (1977) Metaphoric comprehension: studies in reminding and resembling. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 494–533. 10.1016/0010‑0285(77)90018‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(77)90018-4 [Google Scholar]
  19. Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D., Lewis, W., & Garrett, M.
    (2004) Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 48 (4), 422–488. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2003.09.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2003.09.001 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): base domain; conceptual metaphor theory; isomorphic constructs; target domain
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error