Analogies juxtapose different objects to bring forward the similarities between them; they invite comparisons. Unlike metaphors, which take imagery from one realm of experience and apply it to another in order to force insights, analogies make their comparability apparent. Analogies are easy reads in contrast to metaphors, which require a moment of realization to catch on to. The fit between the source domain of the metaphor and its target domain is not guaranteed. Some perceivers never catch on and some metaphors miss their target. This is why metaphors are creative, original, and pleasurable; analogies are straightforward, simple, and clear. At first, like my colleague Dor Abrahamson, I had thought Amit Peled was teaching music by metaphor, taking, for instance, imagery from the source domain of strawberries and applying it to the target domain of cello playing, in the terms linguist George Lakoff introduced into metaphor theory (Lakoff 1987, 276). I had developed an analysis along these lines. But in fact, as my daughter Ariel pointed out, these are not metaphors; they are analogies. For each analogical object Peled specifies, he creates a cartoon emoji. The emojis act as visual mnemonics for the instrumental gestures they display: the instrumental gesture that grasping the object would require (apple, strawberry, grapes), a body posture that mimics the shape of the object (tiger, dinner posture), a body movement that mimics the movement of the object (tree, door hinge, chicken wing, number 8), or a hand movement that mimics the movement of the object (slide, cobra, guitar plucking, bridge, spider walk, crab, octopus, tongue, banana bow, jellyfish). (Three emojis – Olympic medals, magical sound potion, brain waves – are mnemonics for a concept rather than a movement; only one – nails to bridge – is a direct representation of a hand position.) Peled uses touching a strawberry to model touching the strings of the cello, not to metaphorize it. But Abrahamson is right, in these analogies, the moment of insight is transferred from thought to the body, in the instance of the strawberry, to the tips of the fingers where the student discovers a new sensory experience of the string’s vibration, like “taking the pulse of a tiny fervent reptile.” What is interesting about this technique of teaching is Peled’s gestural choreography. He creates several gesture spaces in which to locate his analogical objects and then transports them from one space to another, enacting the hold or movement the gesture is designed to mimic. The gestures by which he takes hold of the objects are not iconics in

中文翻译：

---

大提琴手势：对“永远草莓的感觉：将隐喻理解为感觉运动动力”的反驳，多尔亚伯拉罕森

类比将不同的对象并列在一起，以提出它们之间的相似之处；他们邀请比较。与从一个经验领域获取图像并将其应用于另一个领域以强制洞察力的隐喻不同，类比使它们的可比性变得明显。与隐喻相比，类比更容易阅读，隐喻需要片刻的领悟才能理解。不保证隐喻的源域与其目标域之间的匹配。一些感知者永远不会赶上，而一些隐喻则没有达到目标。这就是隐喻具有创造性、原创性和愉悦性的原因。类比直截了当，简单明了。起初，和我的同事 Dor Abrahamson 一样，我认为 Amit Peled 是通过比喻来教音乐的，例如，来自草莓源域的图像并将其应用于大提琴演奏的目标域，用语言学家 George Lakoff 引入隐喻理论的术语 (Lakoff 1987, 276)。我已经按照这些思路进行了分析。但事实上，正如我女儿 Ariel 所指出的，这些不是隐喻；它们是类比。对于 Peled 指定的每个类比对象，他都会创建一个卡通表情符号。表情符号作为它们显示的工具手势的视觉助记符：抓住物体所需的工具手势（苹果、草莓、葡萄）、模仿物体形状的身体姿势（老虎、晚餐姿势）、身体动作模仿物体运动的动作（树、门铰链、鸡翅、8 号），或模仿物体运动的手部动作（滑梯、眼镜蛇、弹吉他、桥、蜘蛛行走、蟹、章鱼、舌头、香蕉弓、水母）。（三个表情符号——奥运奖牌、神奇的声音药水、脑电波——是概念的助记符，而不是动作；只有一个——钉桥——是手部位置的直接表示。）Peled 使用触摸草莓来模拟触摸草莓大提琴的弦，而不是比喻它。但亚伯拉罕森是对的，在这些类比中，洞察力从思想转移到身体，以草莓为例，转移到指尖，学生在那里发现了弦振动的新感官体验，比如“采取一只小而热情的爬行动物的脉搏。” 这种教学技巧的有趣之处在于 Peled 的手势编舞。他创造了几个手势空间来定位他的类比对象，然后将它们从一个空间传输到另一个空间，制定手势旨在模仿的保持或移动。他握住物体的手势不是