Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society

e examined similarity judgments between simple Noun-Verb?Noun statements that were matched either in their verbs or nouns (separate matches) and made either analogous or non?analogous assertions (combined matches). An analysis of written justifications that accompanied subjects' similarity judgments revealed that matching verbs and matching nouns lead to two qualitatively different types of alignments. Matching verbs (e.g., "The carpenter fixed the chair" and "The plumber fixed the radio") led subjects to construct structural alignments and evaluate the quality of the resulting analogies (e.g., "Not analogous because plumbers don't fix radios as part of their job"). By contrast, and contrary to any traditional account of similarity as a process of comparison, matching nouns (e.g., "The carpenter fixed the chair" and "The carpenter sat on the chair") led subjects to construct thematic ahgnments and evaluate similarity based on the plausibility of the resulting causal or temporal scenarios (e.g., "He sat on the chair to see whether he fixed it well").