Metaphor as Structure-Mapping

Gentner, Dedre; Bowdle, Brian F.

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511816802.008

Cited by 268 publications

(111 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Research on development of metaphor has shown repeatedly that children do not articulate their interpretation of metaphors in the same manner as adults (Gardner, Kircher, Winner & Perkins, 1975;Gentner & Stuart, 1983;Reynolds & Ortony, 1980;Vosniadou & Ortony, 1983;Winner, Rosenstiel & Gardner, 1976). However, we cannot therefore infer that children Development of Analogy 31 are intellectually unable to perform metaphorical and analogical transfer (cf.…”

Section: Developmental Implications and Further Questionsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…interpretations: e.g., "Both can hold water for some time and then later give it back" (Gentner, 1980;Gentner & Block, 1983;Gentner & Stuart, 1983). Further, adults rate analogical comparisons as more apt when they can find relational interpretations than when they can find only attributional interpretations.…”

Section: Development Of Analogymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Insert Figure 1 (Gentner, 1980;Gentner & Block, 1983;Gentner & Landers, 1985;Gentner & Stuart, 1983). From this we can conclude that systematicity is a desideratum in analogy; it is one of the criteria by which an interpretation is devised and by which the analogy itself is judged.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Systematicity and surface similarity in the development of analogy

1986

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Developmental Implications and Further Questionsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Development Of Analogymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Systematicity and surface similarity in the development of analogy

1986

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Functional similarity can be defined as 'a correspondence based on what things do' (e.g., the Sun is like an oven because they both produce heat). There is robust evidence that young children find metaphorical comparisons based on physical or perceptual similarity easier to understand than those based on abstract and complex relations (e.g., Billow, 1975;Gentner & Stuart, 1983), but it is not yet clear when this difference emerges, or whether this is the case for individuals with Williams syndrome. Gentner (1988) proposed that a 'relational shift' occurs during development (at around 6-7 years old) whereby children interpret metaphorical comparisons first in terms of object similarity (i.e., attributional/perceptual similarity) and then in terms of relational similarity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The development of metaphorical language comprehension in typical development and in Williams syndrome

Thomas

Duuren

Purser

et al. 2010

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The domain of figurative language comprehension was used to probe the developmental relation between language and cognition in typically developing individuals and individuals with Williams syndrome. Extending the work of Vosniadou and Ortony (1983), the emergence of non-literal similarity and category knowledge was investigated in 117 typically developing children aged between 4 and 12, 19 typically developing adults, 15 children with Williams syndrome between 5 and 12 years of age, and 8 adults with Williams syndrome. Participants were required to complete similarity and categorization statements by selecting one of two words (e.g., either "The sun is like...?" or "The sun is the same kind of thing as...?") with word pairs formed from items that were literally, perceptually, or functionally similar to the target word, or else anomalous (e.g., 'moon', 'orange', 'oven', or 'chair', respectively). Results indicated that individuals with Williams syndrome may access different, less abstract knowledge in figurative language comparisons, despite the relatively strong verbal abilities found in this disorder. 3Although metaphor and analogy have traditionally been viewed as a relatively rare linguistic ornament that complement literal language, recent research suggests that metaphorical language is, in fact, commonplace in everyday communication (e.g., Graesser, Long & Mio, 1989;Pollio, Barlow, Fine & Pollio, 1977). For example, various strands of linguistic evidence suggest that metaphor is important for communicating, and perhaps reasoning, about abstract concepts (e.g. Gibbs, 1994;Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Understanding metaphorical language necessitates certain degrees of proficiency in both cognition and language, and relies on several component abilities, such as processing capacity, metalinguistic skill, an understanding of communicative pragmatics and semantic knowledge (see Vosniadou, 1987aVosniadou, , 1987b.Although definitions of what constitutes a metaphorical comparison vary considerably (e.g., Bowdle & Gentner, 2005), it seems uncontroversial that understanding verbal metaphor involves accessing some similarity between two terms, while recognizing that two terms belong to different conventional categories. This, of course, necessitates knowledge of such categories. If so, then one can take an initial step in ascertaining whether children are capable of understanding metaphor at a given stage in development by investigating their ability to understand non-literal similarity statements, that is, that items that fall in different semantic or conceptual categories can nevertheless be similar in certain ways. Vosniadou and Ortony (1983) required children between the ages of 3 and 6, as well as adults, to complete similarity statements by selecting one of two words from either (1) a metaphorical/literal pair of alternatives, (2) a literal/anomalous pair, or (3), a metaphorical/anomalous pair. For example, the experimenter would say "A river is like a...?" and the participant was required to respond with...

show abstract

“…The dotted lines between the two embedded boxes represent the analogy between the example and the text. The teachers and Jasmine are using the hypothetical example of Jasmine's baby as a "base" and the case of Sparta as a "target" (Gentner, 1982;Markman, 1997). They set up the example to involve a one-to-one mapping from base to target with respect to the three entities represented in the diagram.…”

Section: A Participant Examplementioning

confidence: 99%

Interactionally situated cognition: a classroom example

Wortham

2001

Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to situated cognition theory, cognitive accomplishments rely in part on structures and processes outside the individual. This article argues that interactional structures -particularly those created through language use -can make essential contributions to situated cognition in rational academic discourse. Most cognitive accomplishments rely in part on language, and language in use always has both representational and interactional functions. The article analyzes one classroom conversation, in order to illustrate how the interactional functions of speech can facilitate the cognitive accomplishments speakers make through that speech. By showing how closely cognition and interaction can interrelate, the article both supports theories of situated cognition and shows how cognition in at least some educational contexts cannot be extricated from enduring social structures and the construction of social identity.

show abstract

Metaphor as Structure-Mapping

Cited by 268 publications

References 65 publications

Systematicity and surface similarity in the development of analogy

Systematicity and surface similarity in the development of analogy

The development of metaphorical language comprehension in typical development and in Williams syndrome

Interactionally situated cognition: a classroom example

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About