A Naturalistic Exploration of Forms and Functions of Analogizing

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to invigorate debate concerning the nature of analogy, and to broaden the scope of current conceptions of analogy. We argue that analogizing is not a single or even a fundamental cognitive process. The argument relies on an analysis of the history of the concept of analogy, case studies on the use of analogy in scientific problem solving, cognitive research on analogy comprehension and problem solving, and a survey of computational mechanisms of analogy comprehension. Analogizing is regarded as a macrocognitive phenomenon having a number of supporting processes. These include the apperception of resemblances and distinctions, metaphor, and the balancing of semantic flexibility and inference constraint. Psychological theories and computational models have generally relied on (a) a sparse set of ontological concepts (a property called "similarity" and a structuralist categorization of types of semantic relations), (b) a single form category (i.e., the classic four-term analogy), and (c) a single set of morphological distinctions (e.g., verbal vs. pictorial analogies). This article presents a classification based on a "naturalistic" exploration of the variety of uses of analogical reasoning in pragmatically distinct contexts. The resultant taxonomy distinguishes pre-hoc, ad-hoc, post-hoc, pro-hoc, contra-hoc, and trans-hoc analogy. Each will require its own macrocognitive modeling, and each presents an opportunity for research on phenomena of reasoning that have been neglected.

Handle with care! Why and how designers make use of product metaphors

“…As Gibbs (2008) proudly pointed out in his 'state-of-the-art' overview on metaphor, metaphor research is now as multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary as any topic being studied in contemporary academia. Scholars from various fields have investigated the functions and meanings of metaphor in relation to art (Aldrich, 1968;Feinstein, 1985;Kennedy, 2008), gestures (Cienki & M€ uller, 2008), marketing (Zaltman & Coulter, 1995), political cartoons (El Refaie, 2003), comics (Forceville, 2005), mathematics (Lakoff & N uñez, 2000), music (Zbikowski, 2008), science (Hoffman, Eskridge, & Shelley, 2009), cinema (Carroll, 1996), and advertising (Forceville, 2002(Forceville, , 2008Phillips & McQuarrie, 2004).…”

Bridging the Features and Effects Divide in Satirical News Research

“…Explanations are characterized by features that aid in understanding, such as specificity, clarity, and systematicity (Gentner, 1982). These types of metaphors are used to explain the unknown in terms of the known with the goal of sensemaking (Hoffman et al, 2009). argues that the "conjunction of two domains of reference invites a fresh perspective, which, in the specific situation of satirical discourse, translates into a 'new way of seeing' a projected object of attack" (p.…”