Part of
Producing Figurative Expression: Theoretical, experimental and practical perspectivesEdited by John Barnden and Andrew Gargett
[Figurative Thought and Language 10] 2020
► pp. 297–330
Edited by John Barnden and Andrew Gargett
[Figurative Thought and Language 10] 2020
► pp. 297–330
Generating metaphors in product design
A product metaphor mediates between the experience process of a user and the generation process of a designer. A user goes through the stages of perceiving that a metaphor has been employed in a product, recognizing its target and source, comprehending why these particular entities are brought together, and appreciating (or not) this association. A designer has a particular intention to attain through the product (i.e., target) and comes up with a meaning to convey accordingly, finds a source that can assign this meaning to the product, and creates a mapping from this source to the product. In this chapter, we will first present a basic framework for metaphoric communication and proceed by elaborating on the designer side of the model. We will address each step through presenting our own research findings and/or analyzing current product metaphors in the market, and transform the framework into a detailed metaphoric communication model. We will end the chapter by discussing the model in a broader context of metaphor generation process and give metaphor producers a summary of considerations on creating more effective and aesthetic metaphors.
Keywords: product metaphor, metaphor generation, metaphoric communication, product design, association, mapping, metaphor quality, metaphor aesthetics
Article outline
- 1.What is a product metaphor?
- 2.Metaphoric communication in product design
- 3.Product metaphor generation
- 3.1The intention to use a metaphor
- 3.2The meaning to convey
- 3.2.1Surface vs. Deep meaning
- 3.2.2Embodied vs. Learned meaning
- 3.3The source to associate
- 3.3.1Salience
- 3.3.2Mappability
- 3.3.3Novelty
- 3.4Mapping
- 3.4.1Mapped properties
- 3.4.2Mapping strategies
- 4.Notes on product metaphor generation
- 5.Summary of considerations for better metaphors
- 6.Conclusion
-
Notes -
References
References
References
Anderson, C. C.
(1964) The
psychology of the
metaphor. The Journal of
Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human
Development, 105(1), 53–73. 
Armstrong, T., & Detweiler-Bedell, B.
(2008) Beauty
as an emotion: The exhilarating prospect of mastering a
challenging world. Review of
General
Psychology, 12(4), 305–329.
Blasko, D. G.
(1999) Only
the tip of the iceberg: Who understands what about
metaphor? Journal of
Pragmatics, 31, 1675–1683.
Bloch, P. H.
(1995) Seeking
the ideal form: Product design and consumer
response. Journal of
Marketing, 59(3), 16–29.
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D.
(2005) The
career of
metaphor. Psychological
Review, 112(1), 193–216.
Casakin, H.
(2012) An empirical assessment of metaphor use in the design studio: analysis, reflection and restructuring of architectural design. . International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(3), 329–344.
Chiappe, D. L., & Chiappe, P.
(2007) The
role of working memory in metaphor production and
comprehension. Journal of
Memory and
Language, 56, 172–188.
Chiappe, D. L., Kennedy, J. M., & Chiappe, P.
(2003) Aptness
is more important than comprehensibility in preference for
metaphors and
similes. Poetics, 31, 51–68.
Christensen, B., & Schunn, C.
(2007) The
relationship of analogical distance to analogical function
and preinventive structure: The case of engineering
design. Memory &
Cognition, 35, 29–38.
Cila, N., Borsboom, F., & Hekkert, P.
(2014) Determinants
of product metaphor
aesthetics. Empirical Studies
of the
Arts, 32(2), 183–203.
Cila, N., Hekkert, P., & Visch, V.
(2010) “As
light as a leaf ”: Product metaphor generation for
experience-driven
design. In K. Sato, P. M. A. Desmet, P. Hekkert, G. Ludden, & A. Matthew (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 7th International Design & Emotion Conference
2010. Chicago, USA.
(2014a) Source
selection in product metaphor generation: The effects of
salience and
relatedness. International
Journal of
Design, 8(1), 15–28.
(2014b) Digging
for meaning: The effect of a designer’s expertise and
intention on depth of product
metaphors. Journal of
Metaphor &
Symbol, 29(4), 257–277.
Clevenger, T., & Edwards, R.
(1988) Semantic
distance as a predictor of metaphor
selection. Journal of
Psycholinguistic
Research, 17(3), 211–226.
Crilly, N., Good, D., Matravers, D., & Clarkson, P. J.
(2008) Design
as communication: Exploring the validity and utility of
relating intention to
interpretation. Design
Studies, 29, 425–457.
Crilly, N., Maier, A., & Clarkson, P. J.
(2008) Representing
artefacts as media: Modelling the relationship between
designer intent and consumer
experience. International
Journal of
Design, 2(3), 15–27.
Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J.
(2004) Seeing
things: Consumer response to the visual domain in product
design. Design
Studies, 25(6), 547–577.
Cupchik, G. C.
(2003) The
‘interanimation’ of worlds: Creative metaphors in art and
design. The Design
Journal, 6(2), 14–28.
Da Silva, O., Crilly, N., & Hekkert, P.
(2016) Maximum
effect for minimum means: The aesthetics of
efficiency. Design
Issues, 32(1), 41–51.
Djajadiningrat, J. P., Overbeeke, C. J., & Wensveen, S. A. G.
(2000) Augmenting
fun and beauty: A
pamphlet.
Proceedings
of DARE 2000 Designing Augmented Reality Environments
Conference
(pp. 131–134). Helsingor,
Denmark.
Do, E. Y., & Gross, M. D.
(1995) Drawing
analogies: Finding visual references by
sketching.
Proceedings,
Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture,
National
Conference
, Seattle.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(2002) The
way we think. New York: Basic Books.
Flor, M., & Hadar, U.
(2005) The
production of metaphoric expressions in spontaneous speech:
A controlled-setting
experiment. Metaphor and
Symbol, 20(1), 1–34.
Forceville, C.
(2008) Metaphor
in pictures and multimodal
representations. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The
Cambridge handbook of metaphor and
thought (pp. 462–482). New York: Cambridge University Press.
(1996) Pictorial
metaphor in
advertising. London: Routledge.
Forceville, C., Hekkert, P., & Tan, E.
(2006) The
adaptive value of
metaphors. In U. Klein, K. Mellman, & S. Metzger (Eds.), Heuristiken
der Literaturwissenschaft: Einladung zu disziplinexternen
Perspektiven auf
Literatuur (pp. 85–109). Paderborn: Mentis.
Fraser, B.
(1979) The
interpretation of novel
metaphors. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor
and
Thought (pp. 401–424). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gentner, D.
(1989) The
mechanisms of analogical
learning. In S. Vosniadou, & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity
and Analogical
Reasoning (pp. 199–241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W., Kushner, J. M., & Mills, W. R.
(1991) Authorial
intentions and metaphor
comprehension. Journal of
Psycholinguistic
Research, 20(1), 11–30.
Glucksberg, S., & Haught, C.
(2006) On
the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison
fails. Mind &
Language, 21(3), 360–378.
Hassenzahl, M.
(2003) The
thing and I: Understanding the relationship between user and
product. In M. A. Blythe, A. F. Monk, K. Overbeeke, & P. C. Wright (Eds.), Funology:
from usability to
enjoyment (pp. 31–42). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hekkert, P.
(2006) Design
aesthetics: Principles of pleasure in product
design. Psychology
Science, 48(2), 157–172.
Hekkert, P., & Cila, N.
(2015) Handle
with care! Why and how designers make use of product
metaphors. Design
Studies, 40(1), 196–217.
Hey, J., Linsey, J., Agogino, A. M., & Wood, K. L.
(2008) Analogies
and metaphors in creative
design. International Journal
of Engineering
Education, 24(2), 283–294.
Hurtienne, J., & Blessing, L.
(2007) Design
for intuitive use – Testing image schema theory for user
interface design. Paper
presented at
the
International
Conference on Engineering
Design
, ICED’07,
Paris, France.
Iacchetti, G.
Johns, B.
(1984) Visual
metaphor: Lost and
found. Semiotica, 52(3), 291–333.
Jones, L. L., & Estes, Z.
(2006) Roosters,
robins, and alarm clocks: Aptness and conventionality in
metaphor
comprehension. Journal of
Memory and
Language, 55, 18–32.
Jones, M. A., & McCoy, K.
(1992) Transparently-motivated
metaphor
generation. In R. Dale, E. Hovy, D. Rosner, & O. Stock (Eds.), Aspects
of automated natural language generation: Lecture notes in
artificial intelligence
587 (pp. 183–198). Berlin: Springer–Verlag.
Kamp, C.
Katz, A. N.
(1982) Metaphoric
relationships: The role of feature
saliency. Journal of
Psycholinguistic
Research, 11(4), 283–296.
Kennedy, J. M.
(1982) Metaphor
in
pictures. Perception, 11, 589–605.
Kolb, E. M. W., Hey, J., Sebastian H. J., & Agogino, A. M.
(2008) Meta4acle:
Generating compelling metaphors for
design. Paper presented at
the
20th International
Conference on Design Theory and Methodology
(DTM)
, New York
City, USA.
Kövecses, Z.
(2010) Metaphor:
A practical
introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Krippendorff, K., & Butter, R.
(2008) Meanings
and contexts of
artifacts. In H. N. J. Schifferstein, & P. Hekkert (Eds.), Product
experience (pp. 353–376). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Lakoff, G.
(1993) The
contemporary theory of
metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor
and thought (2nd
ed., pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors
we live
by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lloyd, P., & Snelders, D.
(2003) What
was Philippe Starck thinking
of? Design
Studies, 24, 237–253.
Lorenz, K.
(1950) Studies
in animal and human
behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lubart, T. I., & Getz, I.
(1997) Emotion,
metaphor, and the creative
process. Creativity Research
Journal, 10(4), 285–301.
Madsen, K.H.
(1994) A guide to metaphorical design. Communications of the ACM, 37(12), 57–62.
Malgady, R. G., & Johnson, M. G.
(1976) Modifiers
in metaphors: Effects of constituent phrase similarity on
the interpretation of figurative
sentences. Journal of
Psycholinguistic
Research, 5(1), 43–52.
Markussen, T., Özcan, E., & Cila, N.
(2012) Beyond
metaphor in product use and
interaction. In L.-L. Chen, T. Djajadiningrat, L. Feijs, S. Fraser, S. Kyffin, & D. Steffen (Eds.), Proceedings
of the DeSForM 2012: Meaning, Matter, Making
Conference (pp. 110–119). Wellington, New Zealand.
Montgomery, A.
(2013) Daniel
Weil redesigns the baby-feeding bottle [Web 157 blog
post]. January 31, 2013.
Retrieved from [URL]
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H.
(1995) The
knowledge-creating
company. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ortony, A., Vondruska, R. J., Foss, M. A., & Jones, L. E.
(1985) Salience,
similes, and the asymmetry of
similarity. Journal of Memory
and
Language, 24, 569–594.
Pierce, R. S., & Chiappe, D. L.
(2009) The
roles of aptness, conventionality, and working memory in the
production of metaphors and
similes. Metaphor and
Symbol, 24(1), 1–19.
Ramachandran, V. S., & Hirstein, W.
(1999) The
science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic
experience. Journal of
Consciousness
Studies, 6(6–7), 15–51.
Richards, I. A.
(1965) The
philosophy of rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schön, D.A.
(1979) Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 138–163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R.
(1979) Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor
and
thought (pp. 83–111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Silvia, P. J., & Beaty, R. E.
(2012) Making
creative metaphors: The importance of fluid intelligence for
creative
thought. Intelligence, 40, 343–351.
Sopory, P., & Dillard, J. P.
(2002) The
persuasive effects of metaphor: A
meta-analysis. Human
Communication
Research, 28(3), 382–419.
Strack, D. C.
(2016) Solving
metaphor theory’s binding problem: An examination of
“mapping” and its theoretical
implications. Metaphor &
Symbol, 31(1), 1–10.
Tourangeau, R., & Sternberg, R. J.
(1981) Aptness
in metaphor. Cognitive
Psychology, 13, 27–55.
Van Rompay, T. J. L.
(2008) Product
expression: Bridging the gap between the symbolic and the
concrete. In H. N. J. Schifferstein, & P. Hekkert (Eds.), Product
experience (pp. 333–352). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Van Rompay, T. J. L., Hekkert, P., & Muller, W.
(2005) The
bodily basis of product
experience. Design
Studies, 26, 359–377.