Salience, similes, and the asymmetry of similarity

https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(85)90047-6Get rights and content

Abstract

Models of similarity have traditionally assumed that the similarity relation is symmetrical. However, when reversed, similarity statements frequently have different properties from those of the original. Previous attempts to account for the asymmetry of similarity have focused only on literal comparisons, resulting in a tendency to underestimate the degree of asymmetry in nonliteral comparisons (i.e., similes). A model of similarity is proposed to account for the varying degrees of asymmetry found in all kinds of natural language comparisons. In this model, asymmetry is attributed to an imbalance in the salience of the shared attributes. Studies are reported which test key aspects of the model. The results appear to provide converging evidence for the claim that asymmetry of similarity is due at least in part to salience imbalance.

References (40)

  • R. Tourangeau et al.

    Understanding and appreciating metaphors

    Cognition

    (1982)
  • R.R. Verbrugge et al.

    Metaphoric comprehension: Studies in reminding and resembling

    Cognitive Psychology

    (1977)
  • L.W. Barsalou

    Context-independent and context-dependent information in concepts

    Memory & Cognition

    (1982)
  • J.D. Carroll et al.

    Multidimensional scaling

  • J.D. Carroll et al.

    Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an N-way generalization of “Eckart-Young” decomposition

    Psychometrika

    (1970)
  • J.D. Carroll et al.

    Multidimensional perceptual models and measurement methods

  • H.H. Clark et al.

    Comprehension and the given-new contract

  • L.J. Cohen

    The semantics of metaphor

  • A. Gati et al.

    Representations of qualitative and quantitative dimensions

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

    (1982)
  • D. Gentner

    Studies of metaphor and complex analogies

  • Cited by (0)

    The research reported here was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. BNS-80-04541, in part by the National Institute of Education under Contract NIE-400-81-0030, and in part by a James McKeen Cattell supplemental sabbatical award, and a Spencer Fellowship awarded to the first author by the National Academy of Education.

    1

    The second author is now with John C. Maloney & Associates, 620 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL.

    View full text