Analogy _ wikipedia Analogy has been studied and discussed since classical antiquity by philosophers, scientists and lawyers. The last few decades have shown a renewed interest in analogy, most notably in cognitive science. Usage of the terms "source" and "target"[edit] With respect to the terms source and target there are two distinct traditions of usage: Models and theories[edit] Identity of relation[edit] Shared abstraction[edit] Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle actually used a wider notion of analogy. The Middle Age saw an increased use and theorization of analogy. Special case of induction[edit] Premises a is C, D, E, F, G b is C, D, E, F Conclusion b is probably G. Shared structure[edit] According to Shelley (2003), the study of the coelacanth drew heavily on analogies from other fish. Keith Holyoak and Paul Thagard (1997) developed their multiconstraint theory within structure mapping theory. High-level perception[edit] Analogy and Complexity[edit] If the source and target are completely known:
Metonymy _ wikipedia Figure of speech in which something is referred to by the name of an associated thing Metonymy ()[1][2][3] is a figure of speech in which a concept is referred to by the name of something closely associated with that thing or concept.[4] Etymology[edit] The words metonymy and metonym come from Ancient Greek μετωνυμία (metōnumía) 'a change of name'; from μετά (metá) 'after, post, beyond', and -ωνυμία (-ōnumía), a suffix that names figures of speech, from ὄνυμα (ónuma) or ὄνομα (ónoma) 'name'.[5] Background[edit] In addition to its use in everyday speech, metonymy is a figure of speech in some poetry and in much rhetoric. Meaning relationships[edit] Metonymy takes many different forms. Synecdoche uses a part to refer to the whole, or the whole to refer to the part.[10][11][12] Many cases of polysemy originate as metonyms: for example, "chicken" means the meat as well as the animal; "crown" for the object, as well as the institution.[15][16] [edit] Examples[edit] Places and institutions[edit]
Synecdoche _ wikipedia From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Use of a term for a part of something to refer to the whole or vice versa Synecdoche ( sih-NEK-də-kee)[1] is a type of metonymy; it is a figure of speech in which a term for a part of something is used to refer to the whole (pars pro toto), or vice versa (totum pro parte).[2][3][4][5] The term is derived from Ancient Greek συνεκδοχή (sunekdokhḗ) 'simultaneous understanding'. Examples of common English synecdoches include suits for businessmen, wheels for automobile, and boots for soldiers. Definition[edit] Synecdoche (and thus metonymy) is distinct from metaphor,[10] although in the past, it was considered to be a sub-species of metaphor, intending metaphor as a type of conceptual substitution (as Quintilian does in Institutio oratoria Book VIII). Metaphor: changing a word from its literal meaning to one not properly applicable but analogous to it; assertion of identity—rather than likeness as with simile. Classification[edit] Examples[edit] Notes[edit]
Metalepsis _ wikipedia From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Figure of speech Metalepsis (from Greek: μετάληψις) is a figure of speech in which a word or a phrase from figurative speech is used in a new context.[1] Examples[edit] "I've got to catch the worm tomorrow." In Icelandic literature[edit] The word twikent (twice-kenned) is used for once-removed metalepsis involving kennings.[2] If a kenning has more than three elements, it is said to be rekit ("extended").[2] Kennings of up to seven elements are recorded in skaldic verse.[3] Snorri Sturluson characterises five-element kennings as an acceptable license but cautions against more extreme constructions: Níunda er þat at reka til hinnar fimtu kenningar, er ór ættum er ef lengra er rekit; en þótt þat finnisk í fornskálda verka, þá látum vér þat nú ónýtt. Other uses[edit] In a metalepsis, a word is substituted metonymically for a word in a previous trope, so that a metalepsis can be called, maddeningly but accurately, a metonymy of a metonymy. — Harold Bloom[8]
Argument from analogy _ wikipedia Type of reasoning The process of analogical inference involves noting the shared properties of two or more things, and from this basis concluding that they also share some further property.[1][2][3] The structure or form may be generalised like so:[1][2][3] P and Q are similar in respect to properties a, b, and c. P has been observed to have further property x. Therefore, Q probably has property x also. The argument does not assert that the two things are identical, only that they are similar. Analysing arguments from analogy [edit] Strength of an analogy Several factors affect the strength of the argument from analogy, including the relevance (positive or negative) of the known similarities to the similarity inferred in the conclusion,[2][3]the degree of relevant similarity (or difference) between the two objects,[2]and the amount and variety of instances that form the basis of the analogy.[2] Hume argued that the universe and a watch have many relevant differences. Philosophy portal
Metaphor and metonymy _ wikipedia Forms of human discourse and cognition For non-linguists, a metonym can be considered a low-imagination metaphor, an allusion via an actual property (or close approximation/association of) the concept being substituted (the too on-the-nose referent). E.g., writing by pen and violence by sword in the pen is mightier than the sword.[dubious ] Etymology[edit] The English metaphor derived from the 16th-century Old French word métaphore, which comes from the Latin metaphora, "carrying over", in turn from the Greek μεταφορά (metaphorá), "transfer",[5] from μεταφέρω (metapherō), "to carry over", "to transfer"[6] and that from μετά (meta), "after, with, across"[7] + φέρω (pherō), "to bear", "to carry".[8] The words metonymy and metonym come from the Greek μετωνυμία, metōnymía, "a change of name", from μετά, metá, "after, beyond" (more precisely = "between", "inside"), and -ωνυμία, -ōnymía, a suffix that names figures of speech, from ὄνυμα, ónyma or ὄνομα, ónoma, "name".[9] References[edit]
Figure of speech A figure of speech is the use of a word or a phrase, which transcends its literal interpretation. It can be a special repetition, arrangement or omission of words with literal meaning, or a phrase with a specialized meaning not based on the literal meaning of the words in it, as in idiom, metaphor, simile, hyperbole, personification, or synecdoche. Figures of speech often provide emphasis, freshness of expression, or clarity. Rhetoric originated as the study of the ways in which a source text can be transformed to suit the goals of the person reusing the material. The four fundamental operations[edit] The four fundamental operations, or categories of change, governing the formation of all figures of speech are:[1] addition (adiectio), also called repetition/expansion/superabundanceomission (detractio), also called subtraction/abridgement/lacktransposition (transmutatio), also called transferringpermutation (immutatio), also called switching/interchange/substitution/transmutation
Rhetorical operations Classification of figures of speech Classical origins[edit] The Latin Rhetorica ad Herennium (author unknown) from the 90s BCE, calls these four operations ἔνδεια, πλεονασμός, μετάθεσις and ἐναλλαγή.[1] Philo of Alexandria (c. 25 BCE – c. 50 CE), writing in Greek, listed the operations as addition (πρόσθεσις), subtraction (ἀφαίρεσις), transposition (μετάθεσις), and transmutation (ἀλλοίωσις).[2] Quintilian (c. 35 – c. 100) mentioned them in Institutio Oratoria (ca 95 CE).[3] Quintilian saw rhetoric as the science of the possible deviation from a given norm, or from a pre-existing text taken as a model. Each variation can be seen as a figure (figures of speech or figures of thought).[4] From this perspective, Quintilian famously formulated four fundamental operations according to the analysis of any such variation.[5][6][7] Reorganization by Groupe μ[edit] In 1970, the Belgian semioticians known under the name Groupe μ, reorganized the four operations. Rhetoric of the image[edit] Notes[edit]
Scheme (linguistics) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Figure of speech that relies on the structure and syntax of sentences A single phrase may involve both a trope and a scheme, e.g., may use both alliteration and allegory. Ellipsis – Omission of wordsAsyndeton – Omission of conjunctions between related clausesBrachylogia – Omission of conjunctions between a series of words Schemes from Silva Rhetoricae Trope (literature) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Use of figurative language for artistic effect Rhetoricians have analyzed a variety of "twists and turns" used in poetry and literature and have provided a list of labels for these poetic devices. These include For a longer list, see Figure of speech: Tropes. Whilst most of the various forms of phrasing described above are in common usage, most of the terms themselves are not, in particular antanaclasis, litotes, metonymy, synecdoche and catachresis. Linguistics portal
Motif (narrative) - any distinctive feature or idea that recurs across a story - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Recurring element that has symbolic significance in a story A narrative motif can be created through the use of imagery, structural components, language, and other elements throughout literature. The flute in Arthur Miller's play Death of a Salesman is a recurrent sound motif that conveys rural and idyllic notions. Another example from modern American literature is the green light found in the novel The Great Gatsby by F. Narratives may include multiple motifs of varying types. The dictionary definition of motif at Wiktionary
Mathematics as Metaphor: Selected Essays of Yuri I. Manin Volume: 20; 2007; 232 pp MSC: Primary 01; The book includes fifteen essays and an interview. The essays are grouped in three parts: Mathematics; Mathematics and Physics; and Language, Consciousness, and Book reviews. Undergraduates, graduate students, research mathematicians, and general public interested in philosophy and history of mathematics, physics, and linguistics. George Lakoff