Methods and Essence of Concept Generation

  • Toshiharu Taura
  • Yukari Nagai


In this chapter, concept generation is systematized into more specific methods of concept synthesis: property mapping, concept blending, and concept integration in thematic relation. First, we show that these methods correspond to property mapping, hybrid, and relation linking in the field of linguistic studies, respectively. This correspondence not only makes it possible to compare concept synthesis with linguistic interpretation but also validates the classification of the three methods of concept synthesis. Next, we conduct an experiment to compare concept synthesis with the process of linguistic interpretation by focusing on the recognition types: commonality, alignable difference, and nonalignable difference. This experiment reveals that the main factors in the concept synthesis are concept blending and nonalignable difference. Moreover, we suggest that focusing on nonalignable difference is not a trait accumulated in subjects; rather, it occurs with regard to the design and interpretation processes.


  1. 1.
    Costello FJ, Keane MT (2000) Efficient creativity: constraint-guided conceptual combination. Cognit Sci 24:299–349. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2402_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Finke RA, Ward TB, Smith SM (1992) Creative cognition: theory, research, and applications. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hampton JA (1997) Emergent attributes in combined concepts. In: Ward TB, Smith SM, Vaid J (eds) Creative thought: an investigation of conceptual structures and processes. APA Book, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ishizaki S (2006) Associative concept dictionary (ver 2). Keio University, Fujisawa (CD-ROM, in Japanese)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lubart TI (1994) Creativity. In: Sternberg RJ (ed) Thinking and problem solving. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Markman AB, Gentner D (1993) Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognit Psychol 25:431–467. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1993.1011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Markman AB, Gentner D (1993) Splitting the differences: a structural alignment view of similarity. J Mem Lang 32:517–535. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1993.1027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Markman AB, Wisnieski EJ (1997) Similar and different: the differentiation of basic-level categories. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cognit 23:54–70. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.23.1.54 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rothenberg A (1979) The emerging goddess: the creative process in art, science, and other fields. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith SM, Ward TB, Finke RA (eds) (1995) The creative cognition approach. The MIT press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Taura T, Nagai Y, Morita J, Takeuchi T (2007) A study on design creative process focused on concept combination types in comparison with linguistic interpretation process. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on engineering design. Paris, France, 28–31 August (CD-ROM)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ward TB, Finke RA, Smith SM (2002) Creativity and the mind: discovering the genius within. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wilkenfeld MJ, Ward TB (2001) Similarity and emergence in conceptual combination. J Mem Lang 45:21–38. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2000.2772 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wisniewski EJ (1996) Construal and similarity in conceptual combination. J Mem Lang 35:434–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yamaguchi T (ed) (2006) Japanese thesaurus dictionary. Taishukan, Tokyo (in Japanese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Toshiharu Taura
    • 1
  • Yukari Nagai
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringKobe UniversityKobeJapan
  2. 2.School of Knowledge ScienceJapan Advanced Institute of Science and TechnologyNomiJapan

Personalised recommendations