Are the Source Domains in Conceptual Metaphor really at the Basic Level? Or at a more Abstract Level?
content
It's hard to claim definitely that source domains are at the basic level, since the basic level can be "tree" or "oak" depending on the local culture and personal experience. Basic Level Familiarity.
However, I'd make the following points, leaning on Properties of the Basic Level:
* Source domains like "journey" or "building" or "war" have the "I know it when I see it" instant recognizability of the basic level. Basic Level Gestalt𓇯.
* They are easily visualizable in the way that "dog" is, without giving the "huh?" feeling that comes when asked to "imagine some furniture."
* They capture summaries of experience that "hang together" meaningfully, that have things they are *about*. Basic Level Experience𓇯
However:
* A concept like "journey" *does* resemble "furniture" in that it lumps together fairly different looking things like car rides, hiking trips, airplane rides, and so on.
* There are definitely source domains that seem awfully abstract. Consider `Good Is Up` or `A Thought Is a Physical Entity` or (perhaps) `An Argument is a Container`.
Given that Concepts and Categories𓇯 have fuzzy edges, prototypical examples – are not based on necessary and sufficient conditions – I suppose it's unsurprising that the concept of Basic Level is the same.
What matters for our purposes is that conceptual metaphors work at two levels of abstraction:
* The Metaphor System𓇯 (`Love is a Journey`) works at the higher level.
* When the system is used to generate a metaphorical utterance ("We're in the fast lane on the highway of love"), it's at a more concrete level, one that exposes details. Indeed, the utterance probably *relies* on those details for its force.