Analogy Lays the Foundation for Two Crucial Aspects of Symbolic Development: Intention and Correspondence

Abstract

We argue that analogical reasoning, particularly Gentner's (1983, 2010) structure-mapping theory, provides an integrative theoretical framework through which we can better understand the development of symbol use. Analogical reasoning can contribute both to the understanding of others' intentions and the establishment of correspondences between symbols and their referents, two crucial components of symbolic understanding. We review relevant research on the development of symbolic representations, intentionality, comparison, and similarity, and demonstrate how structure-mapping theory can shed light on several ostensibly disparate findings in the literature. Focusing on visual symbols (e.g., scale models, photographs, and maps), we argue that analogy underlies and supports the understanding of both intention and correspondence, which may enter into a reciprocal bootstrapping process that leads children to gain the prodigious human capacity of symbol use.

Metaphor Comprehension in Low and High Creative Individuals

“…This result, coupled with previous findings demonstrating how these individuals exhibit a more flexible semantic memory structure ( Kenett et al, 2014 ), provides empirical support for the role of such a flexible semantic memory structure in novel metaphor processing. Furthermore, our findings support theories on metaphor comprehension that postulate semantic comparison and mapping in metaphor comprehension ( Gentner, 1983 ; Bowdle and Gentner, 2005 ; Faust, 2012 ).…”

“…Similarly, Gentner’s structural mapping theory (1983) describes the different cognitive processes that underlie the comprehension of the two metaphor types. According to the structural mapping theory, novel metaphors are comprehended by establishing a correspondence between the concepts of the topic and vehicle ( Gentner, 1983 ). As a metaphor is frequently used and becomes conventionalized, its processing becomes based on a categorization process.…”

Individual Differences in Relational Learning and Analogical Reasoning: A Computational Model of Longitudinal Change

“…In DORA (and its instantiation of LISA), roles are dynamically bound to their fillers by systematic asynchrony of firing. DORA’s working memory is composed of a driver [or the current focus of attention, akin to a “target” in analogical research (see Gentner, 1983 )] and the recipient [akin to active memory per Cowan (2001) and akin to a “base” or “source” in analogical frameworks (see Gentner, 1983 ; Holyoak and Thagard, 1989 )]. As a proposition in the driver becomes active, bound objects and roles fire in direct sequence.…”

Analogical Reasoning in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder: Evidence From an Eye-Tracking Approach

“…Analogical reasoning involves identifying similarities between exemplars and transferring attributes from one exemplar to another exemplar ( Gentner, 1983 , 2003 ). This process allows individuals to extract information from the environment and apply the information to new contexts ( Holyoak et al, 1984 ), and serves as a building block for higher-order functions such as categorization ( Namy and Gentner, 2002 ), problem solving ( Tunteler and Resing, 2002 ), metaphor ( Gentner, 1988 ), symbolic understanding ( DeLoache, 1987 ), and social function ( Liu et al, 1997 ; Landau et al, 2010 ).…”