Anatomy of an Analogy

[DuB]

Analogy and metaphor are powerful linguistic devices. They seem to have a unique capacity for conveying complex meaning and allowing us to understand otherwise difficult and abstract concepts. I am interested in pursuing the following questions (and other related ones) in this thread: What exactly gives analogy and metaphor this aforementioned capacity? Exactly what elements make a good analogy? Conversely, what makes a bad analogy? In what ways can analogy and metaphor be misused? How can relying too much an analogy lead us astray in understanding the concepts they are meant to elaborate? Or can they? I am withholding my personal views on the matter at the moment because I'm currently somewhat under the influence of alcohol and painkillers and thus might not be as clear as I'd like, and also because I still have some organizing of thought to do. I plan to post in this thread as soon as I am more clear headed. But don't let that stop you from getting the discussion rolling without me.

[Invader]

What exactly gives analogy and metaphor this aforementioned capacity? They allow us to recognize the abstract characteristic being applied to the subject by laying out an appropriate context. An example of a metaphor that does this correctly would go something like: "Jamie was a sponge, she remembered everything from class over the week." The context of the statement is with respect to education and information retention, which leaves us with a single characteristic of the sponge that can be applied here: Absorbency. Jamie "absorbs" information. She retains it well. It is crucial that the context allows the reader to single out one characteristic of the metaphor's descriptor (sponge) to apply to the subject. An analogy works similarly. A metaphor is one way to express how one thing is analogous to another, but the use of simile can do this without the use of any special context. Similes, in some cases, are accompanied by explanations that detail what particular characteristic of the descriptor is applied to the subject: "Jamie was like a sponge. She absorbed all of the information from classes that week." The simile tells us that the abstract characteristic being expressed here is absorption, or the "taking in of stuff". The "stuff" in this case is information. Other similes use an "A is to B as C is to D" approach, or what we call relational symmetry. It's a logical expression that allows us to apply the relationship between two subjects to the other two subjects. If our analogy went, "Sponges are to water as Jamie is to information", then we must interpret what the first relationship is (which we are presumably supposed to know) so that we can apply it to the second pair (which is supposed to be the unknown). Sponges absorb water. We know that. The relationship is that the first subject absorbs the second subject. Jamie, then, must "absorb" information. She retains it well. This is the point of the analogy. It is the quality of one subject and how one particular characteristic of that subject is made apparent to the reader so that it can be applied to a second subject that gives analogy/metaphor the "aforementioned capacity" (from quote). Analogy/metaphor use language to make the known characteristic clear. The meaning of the characteristic can become abstract upon its application to the subject. That's all I really feel like answering right now. I'll answer the others later, maybe. Is anything wrong with what I said?

[Xaqaria]

To expand on what invader said, What exactly gives analogy and metaphor this aforementioned capacity? An analogy gets its capacity for conveying meaning by relating the complex subject to a simple one that can be easily understood by most people. A study of the concept of adjacency would be helpful for this topic. I intended to link to an article about it, but since I'm having trouble finding one, I'll explain the concept as best I can. Basically, our brains learn new things by associating them with things we already know. When information is place 'next to' information that we are already familiar with, the two pieces of information become linked in our minds as being similar. Politically minded people use this concept to their advantage simply by saying words that they wish to become associated with each other in the same sentence. For instance, saying the phrase "It is not known whether or not Iraq is connected to terrorism" puts the belief that Iraq is associated with terrorism into people's minds simply because the words "Iraq" and "terrorism" are repeatedly presented close together. This abstract explains the concept pretty well. The best analogies would be ones that relate the complex subject to a very simple one that most everyone would understand and that is widely known for the quality that you are trying to express. Invader's analogy was a good one because although a sponge has many qualities (squishy, usually square if we're talking about a kitchen sponge, often times yellow, etc.), absorbancy is what sponges are specifically known for and that is the quality that he was trying to convey.

[DuB]

I'm clear headed now... but I'm not finding these questions nearly as interesting as I did when I was sedated . So rather than compose a brief essay I'll just point out an interesting paper that I found on the topic: http://www.ipam.ucla.edu/publication...alogy.2005.pdf

[O'nus]

Analogical reasoning involves several sub-processes1) retrieval of one case given another; (2) mapping between two cases in working memory; (3) evaluating the analogy and its inferences; and, sometimes,(4) abstracting the common structure. The core process in analogical reasoning is mapping. According to structure-mapping theory, developed by Dedre Gentner in 1982, an analogy is a mapping of knowledge from one domain (the base or source) into another (the target) such that a system of relations that holds among the base objects also holds among the target objects. In interpreting an analogy, people seek to put the objects of the base in one-to-one correspondence with the objects of the target so as to obtain the maximal structural match. The corresponding objects in the base and target need not resemble each other; what is important is that they hold like roles in the matching relational structures. Thus, analogy provides a way to focus on relational commonalities independently of the objects in which those relations are embedded. In explanatory analogy, a well-understood base or source situation is mapped to a target situation that is less familiar and/or less concrete. Once the two situations are aligned - that is, once the learner has established correspondences between them - then new inferences are derived by importing connected information from the base to the target. For example, in the analogy between blood circulation and plumbing, students might first align the known facts that the pump causes water to flow through the pipes with the fact that the heart causes blood to flow through the veins. Given this alignment of structure, the learner can carry over additional inferences: for example, that plaque in the veins forces the heart to work harder, just as narrow pipes require a pump to work harder. Gentner and Phillip Wolff in 2000 set forth four ways in which comparing two analogs fosters learning. First, it can highlight common relations. For example, in processing the circulation/plumbing analogy, the focus is on the dynamics of circulation, and other normally salient knowledge - such as the red color of arteries and the blue color of veins - is suppressed. Second, it can lead to new inferences, as noted above. Third, comparing two analogs can reveal meaningful differences. For example, the circulation/plumbing analogy can bring out the difference that veins are flexible whereas pipes are rigid. In teaching by analogy, it is important to bring out such differences; otherwise students may miss them, leading them to make inappropriate inferences. Fourth, comparing two analogs can lead learners to form abstractions, as amplified below. + http://www.answers.com/topic/learnin...ical-reasoning Analogical and metaphorical representations are only as good as previous knowledge that can be related to pertinent topics. ~

[beautifulwoodenlegs]

It seems to me that analogies arise when the limits of language are reached, but they are also building blocks for future words. Language has evolved to favor quality over quantity, at least in terms of being able to manipulate the most number of concepts relative to an object in the shortest amount of words. So I believe analogies appear when all other known words in the speaker's diction doesn't adequately describe or emphasize the emotion or experience the speaker is wishing to convey. He then resorts to an analogy which is in-itself a possible definition to a future word.