Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things¶
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. University of Chicago Press.
Cited by¶
8 citations across 8 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Abstraction
- The diagnostics transfer too — "what is this abstraction for?", "what's been hidden?", and "where does the hidden detail come back to matter?" apply identically in all three settings.
This sourceDevelops prototype theory: categories (abstractions) are built around prototypical features with radial extensions, making abstraction gradient-based and purpose-relative rather than classical-strict.
- The diagnostics transfer too — "what is this abstraction for?", "what's been hidden?", and "where does the hidden detail come back to matter?" apply identically in all three settings.
- Archetype
This sourceDevelops prototype/idealized-cognitive-model theory of categorization: categories form by retaining prototypical features, abstraction is gradient and purpose-relative rather than strictly logical. Biblio reference for the cognitive-linguistics reframing of archetypes.
- Boundary
- Lakoff's Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things
This sourceestablishes that cognitive categorization is prototype-/radial-structured with fuzzy peripheries rather than classical necessary-and-sufficient boundaries.
- Lakoff's Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things
- Iconicity
- Lakoff (1987)
This sourceDevelops prototype theory and categorization: abstractions (categories) are formed by retaining prototypical features and dropping variation; abstraction is natural, gradient-based, and purpose-relative rather than strictly logical.
- Lakoff (1987)
- Metaphor
- - The source domain — Two conceptual domains are in play: a source (the domain from which structure is drawn) and a target (the domain into which structure is projected)
This sourceDevelops prototype theory and categorization: abstractions (categories) are formed by retaining prototypical features and dropping variation; abstraction is natural, gradient-based, and purpose-relative rather than strictly logical.
- - The source domain — Two conceptual domains are in play: a source (the domain from which structure is drawn) and a target (the domain into which structure is projected)
- Polysemy
- … (1) one signifier (a word, icon, label, code identifier) maps, at a single moment in time, to two or more distinct but connected signifieds; (2) the senses are motivated — speakers can articulate (often implicitly) why the senses belong together (extension by metaphor, metonymy, specialization, or abstraction)
This sourceDevelops prototype theory and categorization: abstractions (categories) are formed by retaining prototypical features and dropping variation; abstraction is natural, gradient-based, and purpose-relative rather than strictly logical.
- … (1) one signifier (a word, icon, label, code identifier) maps, at a single moment in time, to two or more distinct but connected signifieds; (2) the senses are motivated — speakers can articulate (often implicitly) why the senses belong together (extension by metaphor, metonymy, specialization, or abstraction)
- Schema
This sourceDevelops prototype theory and categorization: abstractions (categories) are formed by retaining prototypical features and dropping variation; abstraction is natural, gradient-based, and purpose-relative rather than strictly logical.
- Signifier–Signified Duality
- Yet the signifier-signified duality remains central: a phonetic form is paired with an embodied semantic structure.
This sourceLakoff Langacker cognitive linguistics embodied semantics metaphor image-schema.
- Yet the signifier-signified duality remains central: a phonetic form is paired with an embodied semantic structure.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's ISBN resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 8 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:1d6180082536 · see in the full table