Are metaphorical classes essentially abstract?

dc.contributor.authorOmid Khatin‐Zadeh
dc.contributor.authorZahra Eskandari
dc.contributor.authorFlorencia Reali
dc.contributor.authorHassan Banaruee
dc.contributor.authorFernando Marmolejo‐Ramos
dc.coverage.spatialBolivia
dc.date.accessioned2026-03-22T14:26:00Z
dc.date.available2026-03-22T14:26:00Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.descriptionCitaciones: 3
dc.description.abstractAbstract 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.
dc.identifier.doi10.1075/cogls.00095.kha
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00095.kha
dc.identifier.urihttps://andeanlibrary.org/handle/123456789/46481
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherJohn Benjamins Publishing Company
dc.relation.ispartofCognitive Linguistic Studies
dc.sourceUniversity of Electronic Science and Technology of China
dc.subjectSuperordinate goals
dc.subjectMetaphor
dc.subjectLinguistics
dc.subjectConceptual metaphor
dc.subjectEpistemology
dc.subjectExpression (computer science)
dc.subjectInterpretation (philosophy)
dc.subjectGeorge (robot)
dc.subjectOrder (exchange)
dc.subjectPsychology
dc.titleAre metaphorical classes essentially abstract?
dc.typearticle

Files