A product language-mediated concept construction model from the perspective of conceptual metaphor

References

• Casakin, H. P. 2006. “Metaphors as an Unconventional Reflective Approach in Architectural Design.” The Design Journal 9 (1): 37–50. https://doi.org/10.2752/146069206789372118.
   Google Scholar
• Casakin, H. P. 2007. “Metaphors in Design Problem Solving: Implications for Creativity.” International Journal of Design 1 (2): 13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng, P., R. Mugge, and C. de Bont. 2019. “Smart Home System is like a Mother: The Potential and Risks of Using Product Metaphors to Influence Consumers.” Comprehension of Really New Products 13 (3): 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Choi, H. H., and M. J. Kim. 2017. “The Effects of Analogical and Metaphorical Reasoning on Design Thinking.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 23: 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.11.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cila, N., P. Hekkert, and V. Visch. 2014. “Source Selection in Product Metaphor Generation: The Effects of Salience and Relatedness.” International Journal of Design 8 (1): 15–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, G. 1994. Discourse and Literature: The Interplay of Form and Mind, Oxford Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dau, F., and G. Stumme. 2005. “Conceptual Structures: Common Semantics for Sharing Knowledge.” 13th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS 2005, Kassel, Germany, July 17-22, 2005, Proceedings. Vol. 3596. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• De Goey, H., P. Hilletofth, and L. Eriksson. 2017. “Design-Driven Innovation: Making Meaning for Whom?” The Design Journal 20 (suppl 1): S479–S491. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352998.
   Google Scholar
• Definition of BIRD. 2023. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bird.
   Google Scholar
• Dell’Era, C., A. Marchesi, R. Verganti, and F. Zurlo. 2008. “Language Mining: Analysis of the Innovation of Dominant Product Languages in Design‐Intensive Industries.” European Journal of Innovation Management 11 (1): 25–50. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060810845213.
   Google Scholar
• Dhakal, A., and B. D. Bobrin. 2022. “Cognitive Deficits.” In StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Dirven, R., and M. Verspoor. 2004. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Du, P., K. Wai Michael Siu, and Y.-T. Shih. 2022. “Product Style Preferences: An Image-Based User Study Software Concept.” In Usability and User Experience, 258–64. https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1001715.
   Google Scholar
• Geeraerts, D. 1989. “Introduction: Prospects and Problems of Prototype Theory.” Linguistics 27 (4): 587–612. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1989.27.4.587.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, R. W., P. L. Costa Lima, and E. Francozo. 2004. “Metaphor is Grounded in Embodied Experience.” Journal of Pragmatics 36 (7): 1189–1210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hampton, J. A. 1995. “Testing the Prototype Theory of Concepts.” Journal of Memory and Language 34 (5): 686–708. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1031.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsu, S. H., M. C. Chuang, and C. C. Chang. 2000. “A Semantic Differential Study of Designers’ and Users’ Product Form Perception.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 25 (4): 375–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(99)00026-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, Z. 2004. Metaphor and Cognition. Beijing: Peking University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jackendoff, R. S. 1985. Semantics and Cognition. Vol. 8. London: MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Knowles, M., and R. Moon. 2006. Introducing Metaphor. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kövecses, Z., and R. Benczes. 2010. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Krippendorff, K. 1989. “On the Essential Contexts of Artifacts or on the Proposition That" Design is Making Sense (of Things.” Design Issues 5 (2): 9–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511512.
   Google Scholar
• Krippendorff, K. 2005. The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for Design. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Krippendorff, K., and R. Butter. 1984. “Product Semantics-Exploring the Symbolic Qualities of Form.” Departmental Papers (ASC): 40.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar, V. 2012. 101 Design Methods: A Structured Approach for Driving Innovation in Your Organization. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Lahlou, H., and I. Ho-Abdullah. 2021. “The Fine Line between Compounds and Portmanteau Words in English: A Prototypical Analysis.” Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 17 (4): 1684–1694. https://doi.org/10.52462/jlls.123.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. 2008. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1980. “The Metaphorical Structure of the Human Conceptual System.” Cognitive Science 4 (2): 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0402_4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 2003. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 2020. “Conceptual Metaphor in Everyday Language.” In Shaping Entrepreneurship Research, edited by Saras Sarasvathy, Nicholas Dew and Sankaran Venkataraman, 475–504. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Madsen, K. H. 1994. “A Guide to Metaphorical Design.” Communications of the ACM 37 (12): 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/198366.198381.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray, H. J. R. 1913. A History of Chess. New York: Skyhorse.
   Google Scholar
• Norman, D. A. 2004. Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Parmentier, D. D., B. B. Van Acker, J. Saldien, and J. Detand. 2021. “A Framework to Design for Meaning: Insights on Use, Practicality and Added Value within a Project-Based Learning Context.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education 31 (4): 815–838. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09575-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qin, Z., and S. Ng. 2021. “Metaphorical Thinking in Designing Meaningful Experience with Product Interaction: A Critical Review.” In Convergence of Ergonomics and Design: Proceedings of ACED SEANES 2020, 23–31.
   Google Scholar
• Rosch, E. 1975. “Cognitive Reference Points.” Cognitive Psychology 7 (4): 532–547. (75)90021-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shu, D. 2000. Studies in Metaphor. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
   Google Scholar
• Siu, K. W. M. 2003. “Users’ Creative Responses and Designers’ Roles.” Design Issues 19 (2): 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1162/074793603765201424.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, J. R. 2003. Linguistic Categorization. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, Y. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wolff, P., and D. Gentner. 2011. “Structure-Mapping in Metaphor Comprehension.” Cognitive Science 35 (8): 1456–1488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01194.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yalom, M. 2004. Birth of the Chess Queen: A History. New York: HarperCollins.
   Google Scholar