Source Selection in Product Metaphor Generation: The Effects of Salience and Relatedness

To generate a product metaphor, designers must select a source, discern a property (or properties) of this source, and transfer this property to the product they design. The selection of any source in particular is affected by the extent to which it represents the meaning the designer intends to convey (i.e., its salience), and the strength of its association with the product (i.e., relatedness). In this paper, we tested how different levels of salience and relatedness influenced source selection in a study conducted with design students. The results indicate that a source was chosen only when it had the intended meaning as a highly salient property, and was highly related to the target product. It was also found that being novel yet understandable, having application potential, and creating a complete, functional product were also considered as source selection criteria by designers. This study aims to relate linguistic theories on metaphors to the domain of product design, and help to clarify how designers create comprehensible and aesthetic metaphors.

[1]  E. Rosch,et al.  Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[2]  Robert G. Malgady.  Category Size, Feature Comparison, and the Comprehension of Figurative Propositions , 1976 .

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

[4]  Lawrence F. Young.  The metaphor machine: A database method for creativity support , 1987, Decis. Support Syst..

[5]  Richard Coyne,et al.  Models, Metaphors and the Hermeneutics of Designing , 1992 .

[6]  D. Chiappe,et al.  The role of working memory in metaphor production and comprehension. , 2007 .

[7]  Roger E. Beaty,et al.  Making creative metaphors: The importance of fluid intelligence for creative thought , 2012 .

[8]  T. Clevenger,et al.  Semantic distance as a predictor of metaphor selection , 1988 .

[9]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Metaphors We Live by , 1982 .

[10]  Stella Boess,et al.  MEANING IN PRODUCT USE: A DESIGN PERSPECTIVE , 2008 .

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

[12]  A. Paivio,et al.  Dimensions of metaphor , 1983 .

[13]  Hernan Casakin,et al.  Metaphors in Design Problem Solving: Implications for Creativity , 2007 .

[14]  Kathleen F. McCoy,et al.  Transparently-Motivated Metaphor Generation , 1992, NLG.

[15]  L. Almeida,et al.  Metaphor creation: a measure of creativity or intelligence? , 2010 .

[16]  R. Sternberg.  RETRACTED ARTICLE: The Nature of Creativity , 2006 .

[17]  C. Forceville.  Creativity in pictorial and multimodal advertising metaphors , 2012 .

[18]  Michael Flor,et al.  The Production of Metaphoric Expressions in Spontaneous Speech: A Controlled-Setting Experiment , 2005 .

[19]  A. Katz.  On choosing the vehicles of metaphors: Referential concreteness, semantic distances, and individual differences , 1989 .

[20]  S. Glucksberg.  The psycholinguistics of metaphor , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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

[22]  Paul Hekkert,et al.  The adaptive value of metaphors , 2006 .

[23]  Donald A. Schön.  Metaphor and Thought: Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy , 1993 .

[24]  Glucksberg Sam,et al.  On the Relation Between Metaphor and Simile: When Comparison Fails , 2006 .

[25]  Richard J. Vondruska,et al.  Salience, similes, and the asymmetry of similarity , 1985 .

[26]  D. G. MacKay,et al.  Metaphor and Thought , 1980 .

[27]  Paul Hekkert,et al.  “Digging for Meaning”: The Effect of a Designer’s Expertise and Intention on Depth of Product Metaphors , 2014 .

[28]  H. Gruber,et al.  Inching our way up Mount Olympus: The evolving-systems approach to creative thinking. , 1988 .

[29]  Anthony Kaye,et al.  Collaborative Learning Through Computer Conferencing , 1992, NATO ASI Series.

[30]  M. Lombard,et al.  Content Analysis in Mass Communication: Assessment and Reporting of Intercoder Reliability , 2002 .

[31]  Alice M. Agogino,et al.  Analogies and metaphors in creative design , 2008 .

[32]  Michael G. Johnson,et al.  Some cognitive aspects of figurative language: Association and metaphor , 1979 .

[33]  A. Katz.  Metaphoric relationships: The role of feature saliency , 1982 .

[34]  Paul Hekkert,et al.  Determinants of Aesthetic Preference for Product Metaphors , 2014 .

[35]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer , 1987, Memory & cognition.

[36]  G. Murphy,et al.  The Big Book of Concepts , 2002 .

[37]  Dennis R. Brophy.  Comparing the Attributes, Activities, and Performance of Divergent, Convergent, and Combination Thinkers , 2001 .

[38]  Luís Moniz Pereira,et al.  Metaphorical mapping consistency via Dynamic Logic Programming , 2014 .

[39]  Kees Dorst,et al.  The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application , 2011 .

[40]  Dan Chiappe,et al.  The Roles of Aptness, Conventionality, and Working Memory in the Production of Metaphors and Similes , 2008 .

[41]  T. Lubart,et al.  Emotion, Metaphor, and the Creative Process , 1997 .

[42]  Andrew Ortony,et al.  The role of similarity in similes and metaphors , 1993 .

[43]  Lionel Wee,et al.  Constructing the source: metaphor as a discourse strategy , 2005 .

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

[45]  B. Lundman,et al.  Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. , 2004, Nurse education today.

[46]  R. Sternberg,et al.  Understanding and appreciating metaphors , 1982, Cognition.