Are metaphorical classes essentially abstract?

References

1. Barsalou, L. W.
   (1983) Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 111, 211–227. 10.3758/BF03196968
   https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196968 [Google Scholar]
2. Barsalou, L. W.
   (1987) The instability of graded structure: Implications for the nature of concepts. InU. Neisser (Ed.), Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization (pp. 101–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Barsalou, L. W.
   (2003) Abstraction in perceptual symbol systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 358(1435), 1177–1187. 10.1098/rstb.2003.1319
   https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2003.1319 [Google Scholar]
4. Barsalou, L. W., & Wiemer-Hastings, K.
   (2005) Situating abstract concepts. InD. 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. 10.1017/CBO9780511499968.007
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499968.007 [Google Scholar]
5. Borghi, A. M., & Binkofski, F.
   (2014) Words as social Tools: An embodied view on abstract concepts. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4614‑9539‑0
   https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9539-0 [Google Scholar]
6. 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. 10.1037/bul0000089
   https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000089 [Google Scholar]
7. Connell, L., & Lynott, D.
   (2012) Strength of perceptual experience predicts word processing performance better than concreteness or imageability. Cognition, 125(3), 452–465. 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.07.010
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.07.010 [Google Scholar]
8. 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. 10.1080/02643294.2010.491359
   https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2010.491359 [Google Scholar]
9. 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. 10.1075/cogls.00025.gat
   https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00025.gat [Google Scholar]
10. Gentner, D.
    (1983) Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170. 10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3 [Google Scholar]
11. Gentner, D., & Boroditsky, L.
    (2001) Individuation, relativity, and early word learning. InM. Bowerman & S. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 215–256). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620669.010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620669.010 [Google Scholar]
12. Glucksberg, S.
    (2001) Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195111095.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195111095.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
13. Glucksberg, S.
    (2003) The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 92–96. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(02)00040‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00040-2 [Google Scholar]
14. Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B.
    (1990) Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97(1), 3–18. 10.1037/0033‑295X.97.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.3 [Google Scholar]
15. Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B.
    (1993) How metaphors work. InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 401–424). New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.020
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.020 [Google Scholar]
16. Glucksberg, S., Manfredi, D. A., & McGlone, M. S.
    (1997) Metaphor comprehension: How metaphors create categories. InT. B. Wards, S. M. Smith & J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 327–350). Washington: American Psychology Association. 10.1037/10227‑013
    https://doi.org/10.1037/10227-013 [Google Scholar]
17. Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M. S., & Manfredi, D. A.
    (1997) Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(1), 50–67. 10.1006/jmla.1996.2479
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.2479 [Google Scholar]
18. 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. 10.1080/10926488.2001.9678898
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678898 [Google Scholar]
19. 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]
20. 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. 10.1007/s10936‑020‑09754‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-020-09754-z [Google Scholar]
21. 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. 10.3390/bs7040084
    https://doi.org/10.3390/bs7040084 [Google Scholar]
22. 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. 10.1080/07268602.2019.1623759
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2019.1623759 [Google Scholar]
23. 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]
24. 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. 10.1075/cogls.00036.kha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00036.kha [Google Scholar]
25. Kövecses, Z.
    (2005) Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511614408
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408 [Google Scholar]
26. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. E.
    (2000) Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Markman, A. B., & Stilwell, C. H.
    (2001) Role-governed categories. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 13(4), 329–358. 10.1080/09528130110100252
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09528130110100252 [Google Scholar]
29. 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. 10.1075/pc.17013.mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17013.mar [Google Scholar]
30. 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. 10.7717/peerj.5987
    https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5987 [Google Scholar]
31. Paivio, A.
    (1986) Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
32. 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. 10.1037/h0025327
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025327 [Google Scholar]
33. Wiemer-Hastings, K., & Xu, X.
    (2005) Content differences for abstract and concrete concepts. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 29(5), 719–736. 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_33
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_33 [Google Scholar]