Ready.
Turkish inclination is often noticed as the concrete -- not the abstract. But, if you come to that, what is meant, or, claimed, by the "concrete" is not really about a good-fit. e.g: An example, boasted as "natural-expressive" in a (biased) linguistic text, is.
That idiom does not really capture any certain job or emotion.
What does that supposedly "concrete" expression mean, then? I notice only the exaggerations in it. Not abstract, not concrete. That is a verbiage, to achieve literary-expressive stress, with a loss of accuracy. No shades of meaning, no real psychology.
Does that mean "difficulty" as if sweeping the ground with hair? If the hair is long enough, how is that difficult?
Does that mean to cut her hair, to craft that tool/gadget to sweep the ground? Is that a such a great self-sacrifice, really? Hair is not permanently lost -- even if cut totally. In a few months, that is there, again.
Does that mean she gave all the money to the detergent, and not to hair-cosmetic, and her hair turned to resembling the sweeper? :-)) Well, that idiom is quite old. I would not judge the cosmetic point.
To know what is really meant, the listener must have memorized that, the meant is an expectation of praise for her service.
Not the spoken-word, but the context-of-expectation, is the communicated. Words lose meaning
Nothing is concrete there. To think the words in concrete terms, would only show the absurdness.
That example does not exemplify any "power of imagination" but the vice versa, the case of gross inaccuracies, irrelevance.
Not to mention that, the notion of "language" here, turns out to mean, "popular poetic pieces," not about morphology, or syntax, and not even really about semantics, if semantics were to relate to each-word, themselves. Instead, the listener or the reader, must have fully memorized the idiom in such a way that, although each word may sound familiar, he/she must keep in mind that, the idiom is to mean a quite, if not altogether, different meaning. The words lost meaning. How is that concrete?
As that Prof. notices the concretization-bias of Turkish, I may not care to object. There is a problem, though, which is important. Only the existence of such an urge to concretize, is not enough to make the verbiage "concrete." If the concept is abstract, the urge to concretize may, at most, amount to a crude approximation.
For example, if to replace the word love, the concretization may try to express that as "She was in a fire, for him." However, if the listener did not already know the idiom, she could not readily infer, whether that "fire" is about love, or hostility, or mourning. In Turkish, we find the pseudo-concrete word "fire" listed for each of them, and more. That is a typical "concretization" case in a Turkish idiom-vocabulary.
There are the affinities, epistemology, for each concept, how we arrive at them. The concrete is the measurable. Reflect, for an abstract concept. And may have faith, to a revealed concept. To try to "concretize all" is to ignore the difference -- if not a taste to load your memory. That is a preference to memorize the verbiage "to make her hair a/the sweeper" instead of employ the word sacrifice -- and with that extra cost that, the word-list of that idiom, lose their original meaning.