Form symbolism, analogy, and metaphor

Abstract

Simple forms, such as a square and a circle, can be symbolic; for example, a square can be deemed to be hard and a circle to be soft. The relation between form symbolism and the comprehension of metaphors and analogies was studied in three experiments. Subjects were asked to rate matches between terms such as soft and hard and circle and square as symbols (Experiment 1), metaphors (Experiment 2), and analogies (Experiment 3). The results show that a highly rated symbolic relation could be a poorly rated metaphorical relation. Ratings of analogies were similar to ratings of symbols. We argue that apt metaphors, analogies, and symbolic forms claim that the vehicle and the topic of the comparisons have common features, but that metaphoric representation entails more common features than does either symbolism or analogy, because metaphor requires that the vehicle be an especially apt example of a superordinate class. Thus, metaphor is a particularly strong claim about common features shared by the topic and the vehicle.