D. Gentner, Structure Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 1983.

Author of the summary: J. William Murdock, 1997, murdock@cc.gatech.edu

Cite this paper for:

• Analogical transfer can be done by mapping systems of relationships to each other in a purely syntactic manner.

Keywords: Analogy, Relation, Proposition, Structure

Systems: None

Summary: Argues that a simple measure of degree of similarity is not
an adequate account of matching for the determination of analogy.
Presents a language of objects, attributes, and relationships.  Argues
that the core of analogy is the mapping of relationships.  Observes
that this claim is independent of content; that the nature of the
representation directly facilitates analogy independent of the content
of the information.  Describes the atom-solar system example.  Claims
that the key to analogy is not just relationships but systems of
interconnected relationships and argues for this claim using the
examples.  Discusses some (really minor) empirical support and a (very
brief) summary of related research.  Presents "the analogical shift
conjecture", that reasoning from experience starts with similarity
mapping, moves into analogy and then finally into abstraction of
general principles.

Summary author's notes:

• This summary came from a file which had the following disclaimer: "The following summaries are the completely unedited and often hastily composed interpretations of a single individual without any sort of systematic or considered review. As such it is very likely that at least some of the following text is incomplete, inadequate, misleading, or simply wrong. One might view this as a very preliminary draft of a survey paper that will probably never be completed. The author disclaims all responsibility for the accuracy or use of this document; this is not an official publication of the Georgia Institute of Technology or the College of Computing thereof, and the opinions expressed here may not even fully match the fully considered opinions of the author much less the general opinions of the aformentioned organizations."