@inproceedings{64827,
  author       = {{Porwol, Philip Fabian and Körber, Miriam and Kern, Friederike  and Schulte, Carsten and Scharlau, Ingrid}},
  booktitle    = {{Proceedings of the 3rd TRR 318 Conference: Contextualizing Explanations}},
  editor       = {{Cimiano, Philip and Paaßen, Benjamin and Vollmer, Anna-Lisa}},
  location     = {{Bielefeld}},
  publisher    = {{Bielefeld University Press}},
  title        = {{{Framing what and how to think: Lay people’s metaphors for algorithms}}},
  doi          = {{10.64136/ubio9074}},
  year         = {{2026}},
}

@article{61244,
  abstract     = {{Explanations play a crucial role in knowledge transfer and meaning-making and are often described as a co-constructive process in which multiple agents collaboratively shape understanding. However, the metaphors used to conceptualize explaining may influence how this process is framed. This study investigates the extent to which the co-constructive nature of explaining is represented in explaining metaphors. Using a systematic analysis of agency, we examined how these metaphors depict the explanation process and the roles of the agents involved. We found that explaining metaphors lack collaboration between explainer and addressee, constructiveness of the process, as well as bidirectionality and iterativeness. In light of current research on metaphorical framing, the study thus highlights the risk that such explaining metaphors may reinforce a non-co-constructive perspective on explaining and a top-down approach in the development of AI systems as well as other areas.}},
  author       = {{Porwol, Philip Fabian and Scharlau, Ingrid}},
  journal      = {{Frontiers in Psychology}},
  title        = {{{Is explaining more like showing or more like building? Agency in metaphors of explaining}}},
  doi          = {{https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1628706}},
  year         = {{2025}},
}

@article{62932,
  abstract     = {{Many previous studies on the conceptual function of metaphors have focused on their func-tion  of  highlighting  aspects  of  target  concepts.  From  the  beginning  of  this  research,  it  was knownthat conceptual metaphors also hide aspects of the target concept; however, this as-pect has been less studied. This study builds upon the idea that the hiding aspect of a specific metaphor should be identified in relation to other metaphors for the same concept. A method is presented to detail this relation based on the theory of semantic frames and the FrameNet resource to identify the hidden aspects and apply it to a corpus of 298 elicited metaphor texts on the target concept of understanding. The analysis revealed that certain conceptual aspects are consistently hidden by a majority of metaphors, pointing to patterns in conceptualization. Using  this  approach,  six  aspects  frequently  hidden  by  metaphors  were  identified:  Sociality, Transfer, Ownership, Perception, Foundation and Duration.}},
  author       = {{Porwol, Philip Fabian and Scharlau, Ingrid}},
  journal      = {{STUDIA NEOFILOLOGICZ: NEROZPRAWY JĘZYKOZNAWCZE (Modern Language Studies: Linguistic Essays)}},
  pages        = {{181--198}},
  publisher    = {{Uniwersytet Jana Długosza w Częstochowie}},
  title        = {{{What do metaphors of understanding hide?}}},
  volume       = {{XXI}},
  year         = {{2025}},
}