Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:33:56.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Creation of Similarity: A Discussion of Metaphor in Light of Tversky's Theory of Similarity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Eva Feder Kittay
Eva Feder Kittay*
Affiliation:
SUNY, Stony Brook
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The cognitive interest in metaphor and simile derives from a conceptual detour: through these figures we regard one thing in terms of another, and in so doing our understanding of the first is modified in light of perspective gained by the second.

But why, in terms of cognitive gain, engage in such conceptual detours? That is, what motivates our use of metaphor and simile? The motivation of metaphor has often been thought to be the assertion of asimilarity amongst things generally not thought to be similar. However, as Max Black pointed out in criticizing the “comparison theory of metaphor”, metaphors are not simple comparisons of “objectively given” similarities, wherein to the question “is A like B in respect of P?” we might have a definite answer.

Type
Part IX. Philosophy of Science, past and Future: Metaphor and Play
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1982 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1982 , 1982 , pp. 394 - 405
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Black, Max. (1954). “Metaphor”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 55: 273–294. (As reprinted in Models and Metaphors. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1962. Pages 25-47.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, Richard. (1979). “Metaphor and Theory Change: What is ‘Metaphor’ a Metaphor for?” In Orton. (1979). Pages 356-408.Google Scholar
Kittay, Eva. (1978). The Cognitive Force of Metaphor: A Theory of Metaphorio Meaning. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertaion, City University of New York. Xerox University Microfilms Publication Number 79-00789.Google Scholar
Kittay, Eva and Lehrer, Adrienne. (1981). “Semantic Fields and the Structure of Metaphor.” Studies in Language 5: 31–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, Adrienne. (1974). Semantic Fields and Lexical Structure. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. (1963). Structural Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ortony, A. (ed.). (1979). Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1973). “On the Internal Structure of Perceptual and Semantic Categories.” In Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language. Edited by Moore, T.E.. New York: Academic Press. Pages 111–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. (1975). “Cognitive Reference Points.” Cognitive Psychology 7: 532–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. and Mervis, C.B. (1975). “Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories.” Cognitive Psychology 7: 573–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. et al. (1976). “Basic Objects i n Natural Categories.” Cognitive Psychology 8: 382–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, Amos. (1977). “Features of Similarity.“ Psychological Review. 84: 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, Amos and Gati, I. (1979). “Studies of Similarity.” In on the Nature and Principle of Formation of Categories. Edited by Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B.. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pages 79–98.Google Scholar