A REGISTER APPROACH TO ANALOGY IN SCIENCE TEXTS: POPUPLAR VS. SPECIALIZED TEXT TYPES

Christoph Haase

doi:10.5817/DI2014-1-33

A REGISTER APPROACH TO ANALOGY IN SCIENCE TEXTS: POPUPLAR VS. SPECIALIZED TEXT TYPES

Vol.7,No.1(2014)

Christoph Haase

https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2014-1-33

PDF

Abstract

In this paper, a comparative approach was pursued to show differences but also remarkable similarities between the application of analogy in popular science texts and in specialized science texts. Setting out from an initial hypothesis that popular texts use forms of analogy that lend themselves to direct interpretation and high accessibility, we try to show that actual specialized science discourse could benefi t from simpler and more versatile analogy. For this end, the current state of the art in analogy research was evaluated and a corpus of academic texts was queried. Further, a number of approaches and fi ndings could be contributed as a direct outcome of the international Analogy – Copy – Representation workshop held at Bielefeld University in November 2014, which was co-organized by the author. In consequence, a more comprehensive picture of analogy in cognition, language and scientifi c discourse is sketched in this contribution. Especially the domain-dependence of the use of analogies showed surprising results.

Keywords:
analogy; analogical reasoning; academic English; English for Academic Purposes; corpus linguistics; corpora; genre

References

Aarts, B. (2007) Syntactic Gradience: The Nature of Grammatical Indeterminacy. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Aubusson, P. J., Harrison, A. G. and Ritchie, S. M. (eds) (2006) Metaphor and Analogy in
Science Education. Berlin: Springer.

Bauer, L. (2001) Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blevins, J. P. and Blevins, J. (eds) (2010) Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bornstein, M. H. and Lamb, M. E. (eds) (2011) Cognitive Development. An Advanced
Textbook. New York, Hove: Psychology Press.

Chandler, S. (2002) ‘Skousen’s analogical approach as an exemplar-based model of
categorization.’ In: Skousen, R., Lonsdale, D. and Parkinson, D. B. (eds) Analogical
Modeling. An Exemplar-Based Approach to Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
51-105.

Changeux, D. and Connes, A. (1995) Gedächtnisspur. Berlin: Springer.

Evans, V. and Green, E. (2006) Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.

Fauconnier, G. (1997) Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. (2002) The Way We Think. Conceptual Blending and the
Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.

Gentner, D. (1983) ‘Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy.’ Cognitive
Science 7, 155-170. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3

Gentner, D. and Gentner, D. R.(1983) ‘Flowing waters or teemingcrowds: Mental models
of electricity.’ In: Gentner, D. and Stevens, A. L. (eds) Mental Models. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum. 99-129.

Gentner, D. and Jeziorski, M. (1993) ‘The shift from metaphor to analogy in Western
science.’ In: Ortony, A. (ed.) Metaphor and Thought. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. 447-480.

Gentner, D. (2001) ‘Analogy. In: Wilson, R. A. and Keil, F. (eds) The MIT Encyclopedia
of the Cognitive Sciences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.17-20.

Gentner, D. (2002) ‘Analog in scientifi c discovery: The case of Johannes Kepler.’ In:
Magnani, L. and Nersessian, N. J. (eds) Model-Based Reasoning: Science, Technology,
Values. New York: Kluwer. 21-39.

Greene, B. (2003) The Elegant Universe. New York: Vintage books.

Haase, C. (2010) ‘Mediating between the “two cultures” in academia: The role of
conceptual metaphor.’ Discourse and Interaction 3/1, 5-18.

Haase, C. (2013) ‘Tools for identifying and teaching semantic complexity in academic
writing.’ In: Tafazoli, D. (ed.) Language & Technology: Computer Assisted Language
Teaching, Tehran: Khate Sefi d.129-137.

Harrison, A. G. and Treagust, D. F. (2006) ‘Teaching and learning with analogies.’ In:
Aubusson, P. J., Harrison, A. G. and Ritchie, S. M. (eds) Metaphor and Analogy in
Science Education. Berlin: Springer. 11-24.

Hawley, J. F. and Holcomb, K. A. (2005) Foundations of Modern Cosmology. 2nd ed.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hay, J. B. and Baayen, H. (2002) ‘Parsing and productivity.’ In: Booij, G. E. and van
Marel, J. (eds) Yearbook of Morphology. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 203-235. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3726-5_8

Hock, H. H. (2005)‘Analogical change.’ In: Joseph, B. D. and Janda, R. D. (eds) The
Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Malden: Blackwell. 441-460.

Hofstadter, D. R. (1995) Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies.Computer Models of the
Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought. New York: Basic Books.

Holyoak, K. J. and Thagard, P. J. (1989) ‘Analogical mapping by constraint
satisfaction.’Cognitive Science13, 295-355.

Itkonen, E. (2005) Analogy as Structure and Process. Approaches in Linguistics, Cognitive
Psychology and Philosophy of Science. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Leví-Strauss, C. (1967) Strukturale Anthropologie I. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Plag, I. (2003) Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skousen, R., Lonsdale, D. and Parkinson, D. B. (eds) (2002) Analogical Modeling. An
Exemplar-Based Approach to Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Wierzbicka, A. (2006) English: Meaning and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wilson, W. H., Halford, G. S., Gray, B. and Phillips, S. (2001) ‘The STAR-2 model
for mapping hierarchically structured analogs.’ In: Gentner, D., Holyoak, K. J. and
Kokinov, B. N. (eds) The Analogical Mind. Perspectives from Cognitive Science.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 125-160.

Wolff, P. and Gentner, D. (2011) ‘Structure-mapping in metaphor comprehension.’
Cognitive Science35, 1456-1488.

Metrics