Cover not available

In:Producing Figurative Expression: Theoretical, experimental and practical perspectives
Edited by John Barnden and Andrew Gargett
[Figurative Thought and Language 10] 2020
► pp. 299–330

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Generating metaphors in product design

 | Delft University of Technology
 | Delft University of Technology
Published online: 17 December 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.10.11cil
Abstract
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.
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 (67)
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blasko, D. G. (1999). Only the tip of the iceberg: Who understands what about metaphor? Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1675–1683. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 16–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chiappe, D. L., & Chiappe, P. (2007). The role of working memory in metaphor production and comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 172–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cila, N., Borsboom, F., & Hekkert, P. (2014). Determinants of product metaphor aesthetics. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 32(2), 183–203. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014a). Source selection in product metaphor generation: The effects of salience and relatedness. International Journal of Design, 8(1), 15–28.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clevenger, T., & Edwards, R. (1988). Semantic distance as a predictor of metaphor selection. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17(3), 211–226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cupchik, G. C. (2003). The ‘interanimation’ of worlds: Creative metaphors in art and design. The Design Journal, 6(2), 14–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Da Silva, O., Crilly, N., & Hekkert, P. (2016). Maximum effect for minimum means: The aesthetics of efficiency. Design Issues, 32(1), 41–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flor, M., & Hadar, U. (2005). The production of metaphoric expressions in spontaneous speech: A controlled-setting experiment. Metaphor and Symbol, 20(1), 1–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996). Pictorial metaphor in advertising. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (1979). The interpretation of novel metaphors. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp. 401–424). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Kushner, J. M., & Mills, W. R. (1991). Authorial intentions and metaphor comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20(1), 11–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S., & Haught, C. (2006). On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison fails. Mind & Language, 21(3), 360–378. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hekkert, P. (2006). Design aesthetics: Principles of pleasure in product design. Psychology Science, 48(2), 157–172.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hekkert, P., & Cila, N. (2015). Handle with care! Why and how designers make use of product metaphors. Design Studies, 40(1), 196–217. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. (2007). St. Peter Squeezer. Retrieved from [URL]
Johns, B. (1984). Visual metaphor: Lost and found. Semiotica, 52(3), 291–333.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kamp, C. (2016). Anna G corkscrew: the woman who inspired curvaceous design classic. Retrieved from [URL]
Katz, A. N. (1982). Metaphoric relationships: The role of feature saliency. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 11(4), 283–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. M. (1982). Metaphor in pictures. Perception, 11, 589–605. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lloyd, P., & Snelders, D. (2003). What was Philippe Starck thinking of? Design Studies, 24, 237–253. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorenz, K. (1950). Studies in animal and human behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lubart, T. I., & Getz, I. (1997). Emotion, metaphor, and the creative process. Creativity Research Journal, 10(4), 285–301. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Madsen, K.H. (1994). A guide to metaphorical design. Communications of the ACM, 37(12), 57–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Richards, I. A. (1965). The philosophy of rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1979). Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 83–111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silvia, P. J., & Beaty, R. E. (2012). Making creative metaphors: The importance of fluid intelligence for creative thought. Intelligence, 40, 343–351. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sopory, P., & Dillard, J. P. (2002). The persuasive effects of metaphor: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 382–419. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Strack, D. C. (2016). Solving metaphor theory’s binding problem: An examination of “mapping” and its theoretical implications. Metaphor & Symbol, 31(1), 1–10. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tourangeau, R., & Sternberg, R. J. (1981). Aptness in metaphor. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 27–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Rompay, T. J. L., Hekkert, P., & Muller, W. (2005). The bodily basis of product experience. Design Studies, 26, 359–377. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue