Beyond metaphor in product use and interaction

The overall aim of this paper is to demonstrate that there is a need for supplementing the theory of product metaphor with a more elaborate theory of product meaning. More speci!cally, we argue that the notion of product metaphor neglects three critically important aspects of meaning making in product use. First, the notion of product metaphor usually accounts for how the visual form and appearance of a product might cue people to conceive of the product in terms of another conceptual source (e.g. a coffee maker as a butler), while leaving the role of cross-modal sensory experience in product meaning out of consideration. Secondly, like other theoretical frameworks in design semantics, the notion of product metaphor primarily accounts for the semantic operations that are involved in the !rst initial phase of product categorization and interpretation, while eschewing the question as to how product interpretation might evolve over time as people interact with and use the product. Finally, in product use there often emerge more complex and even ambiguous forms of meaning, which fall outside the explanatory scope of the source-target construal principle – the key semantic principle of product metaphor. In order to remedy these limitations inherent in the theory of product metaphor we introduce a new semantic framework based upon Fauconnier and Turner’s theory of conceptual blends.

[1]  T. Markussen A Cognitive Semiotic Approach to the Aesthetic Interplay between Form and Meaning in Responsive Environments , 2010 .

[2]  D. Medin,et al.  Concepts do more than categorize , 1999, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[3]  Gilles Fauconnier,et al.  Conceptual Integration Networks , 1998, Cogn. Sci..

[4]  L. Barsalou,et al.  Whither structured representation? , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[5]  G. Lakoff The Invariance Hypothesis: is abstract reason based on image-schemas? , 1990 .

[6]  Peter Gall Krogh,et al.  Mapping Cultural Frame Shifting in Interaction Design with Blending Theory , 2008 .

[7]  Geke D.S. Ludden,et al.  Visual–Tactual Incongruities in Products as Sources of Surprise , 2009 .

[8]  R. Gibbs The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought , 2008 .

[9]  P. Hekkert,et al.  Product Metaphors A Framework for Metaphor Generation and Experience in Products , 2009 .

[10]  T. Markussen Disciplining the body? Reflections on the cross disciplinary import of ‘embodied meaning’ into interaction design , 2009 .

[11]  A. Paivio Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. , 1991 .

[12]  Gerald C. Cupchik,et al.  The ‘Interanimation’ of Worlds: Creative Metaphors in Art and Design , 2003 .

[13]  G. Fauconnier,et al.  The Way We Think , 2002 .

[14]  Dirk Snelders,et al.  What was Philippe Starck thinking of , 2003 .

[15]  N. Presmeg The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination and reason , 1992 .

[16]  P. Ricoeur,et al.  The rule of metaphor : Multi-disciplinary studies of the creation of meaning in language , 1979 .

[17]  Evangelos Karapanos,et al.  User experience over time , 2008, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[18]  Steve Benford,et al.  Ambiguity as a resource for design , 2003, CHI '03.

[19]  G. Lakoff Women, fire, and dangerous things : what categories reveal about the mind , 1989 .

[20]  David Benyon,et al.  Designing with blends - conceptual foundations of human-computer interaction and software engineering , 2006 .

[21]  Geke D.S. Ludden,et al.  Effects of visual-auditory incongruity on product expression and surprise , 2007 .

[22]  T. V. Rompay,et al.  Product expression : Bridging the gap between the symbolic and the concrete , 2008 .

[23]  M. Bar Visual objects in context , 2004, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[24]  Guido Orgs,et al.  Is conceptual priming for environmental sounds obligatory? , 2007, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[25]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind , 1988 .

[26]  C. Forceville Metaphor in pictures and multimodal representations , 2008 .

[27]  C. Forceville,et al.  Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: agendas for research , 2006 .

[28]  L. Barsalou,et al.  Ad hoc categories , 1983, Memory & cognition.

[29]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Philosophy in the flesh : the embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought , 1999 .