پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 158 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,240 |
| تعداد مقالات | 67,872 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 115,480,308 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 90,250,103 |
مطالعۀ عملکرد مغز هنگام درک استعاره‌های متعارف و نا متعارف | ||
| پژوهشهای زبانی | ||
| دوره 13، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 25، اسفند 1401، صفحه 23-53 اصل مقاله (1.04 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jolr.2023.353638.666822 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| لادن جواهری1؛ عامر قیطوری* 1؛ مهدی خدامرادی2؛ شهاب مرادخانی3 | ||
| 1گروه زبان انگلیسی و زبانشناسی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه رازی، کرمانشاه، ایران، | ||
| 2مرکز تحقیقات پیشگیری سوء مصرف مواد، پژوهشکده سلامت، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی کرمانشاه، کرمانشاه، ایران | ||
| 3گروه زبان انگلیسی و زبانشناسی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه رازی، کرمانشاه، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| عصرِ حاضر، عصرِ سیطرۀ علم بر باور‌های بشری است. نیاز انسان به شناختِ ماهیتِ خود و جهان اطرافش او را به سوی باور پدیده‌ها براساسِ مستندات و شواهد عینی سوق داده است. همین امر سبب گردیده که امروزه علومِ شناختی به حوزۀ مورد علاقه بسیاری از دانش پژوهان مبدل‌گردد. یکی از حوزه‌های اصلی علوم شناختی، زبانشناسیشناختی است که بر پایۀ مطالعۀ زبان بنا نهاده شده است. از آن‌جا که، زبان را می‌توان ابزاری برای بازنمایی ذهن برشمرد؛ از این‌رو، زبانشناسیشناختی از مطالعۀ ساختار ظاهری زبان فراتر رفته و به بررسی عملیاتِ بنیادی بسیار پیچیده‌ای می‌پردازد که در تکوین دستور زبان، مفهوم‌سازی، سخن‌گفتن و تفکر نقش عمده‌ای را ایفا می‌کنند. رویکردِ نظری این حوزه بر پایه مشاهدات تجربی و آزمایش‌های علمیِ روان‌شناسی و علوم‌اعصاب بنا نهاده شده و هدف آن فهم چگونگی بازنماییِ اطلاعات زبانی در ذهن، واکاوی فرآیند یادگیری زبان و سازوکار درک و استفاده از آن است. در دهه‌های اخیر، واکاوی و توضیح فرآیندهای درک استعاره، مورد توجه بسیاری از زبان شناسان قرار گرفته است. یکی از چالش‌های اصلی در این راستا، یافتن راهکاری است که بتواند فرآیندهای درگیر در درک انواع مختلف استعاره را توضیح دهد. در این پژوهش، با توجه به سازوکار درک زبان در مغز، به بررسی دو گروه متفاوتِ استعاره‌های متعارف و استعاره‌های نا متعارف پرداختیم. این پژوهش توصیفی -تحلیلی بوده و با استناد به مقالات، کتب و تحقیقاتِ صورت گرفته در زمینۀ ارتباط مغز با فرآیند درک استعاره صورت گرفته است. نتایج حاصل از این تحقیق گویای آن است که درک استعاره‌های متعارف، سبب بروز فعالیت در شکنج میانی گیجگاهی چپ، بخش دوکی شکل راست و شکنج پیشانی تحتانی می‌شود. در حالی‌که، بخش دوکی شکل سمت راست، با ادغام اطلاعات بصری و معنایی مرتبط است. از سویی دیگر، استعاره‌های نامتعارف (بدیع)، به‌صورت مداوم، شکنچ دوکی شکل چپ و پیش‌مخروطی (بره‌کونئوس) سمت راست را فعال می‌کنند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| زبانشناسیشناختی؛ علوم اعصاب شناختی؛ کاربردشناسی عصبی؛ مغز؛ استعاره‌های متعارف؛ استعاره‌های نا متعارف | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| The study of brain function during the understanding of conventional and unconventional metaphors | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Ladan Javaheri1؛ amer gheitury1؛ Mehdi khodamoradi2؛ Shahab Moradkhani3 | ||
| 1Department of English Language and Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran | ||
| 2Substance Abuse Prevention Research Center, Health Institute, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran | ||
| 3Department of English Language and Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| The present era is the era of science's control over human beliefs. Man's need to know the nature of himself and the world around him has led him to believe in phenomena based on objective evidence, and this has caused cognitive science to become the favorite field of many scholars today. One of the main fields of cognitive sciences is linguistics, which is based on the study of language. Since language can be considered as a tool to represent the mind; therefore, cognitive linguistics goes beyond the study of the apparent structure of language and investigates very complex fundamental operations that play a major role in the development of language grammar, conceptualization, speaking and thinking. The theoretical approach of this field is based on experimental observations and scientific experiments of psychology and neuroscience, and its purpose is to understand how linguistic information is represented in the mind, to learn language and to understand and use it. In recent decades, the analysis and explanation of metaphor understanding processes has been the focus of many linguists. One of the main challenges in this direction is to find a solution that can explain the processes involved in understanding different types of metaphor. In this research, considering the mechanism of language understanding in the brain, we examined two different groups of conventional metaphors and unconventional metaphors. This research is descriptive-analytical and based on the articles, books and research done in the field of brain connection with metaphor understanding process. The results of this research show that understanding conventional metaphors causes activity in the left middle temporal gyrus, the right fusiform part and the inferior frontal gyrus. While, the fusiform part of the right side is related to the integration of visual and semantic information. On the other hand, unconventional metaphors continuously activate the left fusiform gyrus and the right precone. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| cognitive linguistics, cognitive neuroscience, applied neuroscience, brain, conventional metaphors, unconventional metaphors | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
ایوانز، ویوین (2007). واژهنامۀ توصیفی زبانشناسی ویوین ایوانز، ترجمۀ حدائق رضایی، مینا قندهاری، قم: لوگوس، چاپ اول.
Arzouan, Y., Goldstein, A., & Faust, M. 2007. Dynamics of hemispheric activity during metaphor comprehension: Electrophysiological measures. Neuroimage, 36(1), 222-231 Baddeley, A. 2003. Working memory: looking back and looking forward. Nature reviews neuroscience, 4(10), 829-839. Bambini V., 2010 “Neuropragmatic: A Foreword”, Italian Journal of Linguistics 22(1), pp. 1-20. Beeman, M. 1998. Coarse semantic coding and discourse comprehension, M. Beeman, C. Chiarello (Eds.), Right Hemisphere Language Comprehension: Perspectives from Cognitive Neuroscience. In: Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Bertucceli Papi M. and A. Baicchi, 2008, “Pragmatica e Semantica”, in I. Iamartino (ed.), Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata, Pacini, Pisa, pp. 91-124. Blasko, D. G., & Connine, C. M. 1993. Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition, 19(2), 295. Cavanna, A. E., & Trimble, M. R. 2006. The precuneus: a review of its functional anatomy and behavioural correlates. Brain, 129(3), 564-583. Chiappe, D. L., & Chiappe, P. 2007. The role of working memory in metaphor production and comprehension. Journal of memory and language, 56(2), 172-188. Cohen J.D., WM. Perlstein, T.S. Braver, L.E. Nystrom, D.C. Noll, J. Jonides and E.E. Smith, 1997, “Temporal Dynamics of Brain Activation During Working Memory Task”, Nature 386, pp. 604-607. Cornejo, C., Simonetti, F., Ibáñez, A., Aldunate, N., Ceric, F., López, V., & Núñez, R. E. 2009. Gesture and metaphor comprehension: electrophysiological evidence of cross-modal coordination by audiovisual stimulation. Brain and cognition, 70(1), 42-52. Coulson, S. 2006. Metaphor and conceptual blending. In K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edition, Elsevier, Oxford, vol. 7, pp. 32-39. Coulson, S. 2008. Metaphor comprehension and the brain. The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 177-194. Coulson, S., & Matlock, T. 2001. Metaphor and the space structuring model. In Metaphor and Symbol (pp. 295-316): Psychology Press. Coulson, S., & Oakley, T. 2005. Blending and coded meaning: Literal and figurative meaning in cognitive semantics. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1510-1536. Damasio, H., Grabowski, T. J., Tranel, D., Hichwa, R. D., & Damasio, A. R. 1996. A neural basis for lexical retrieval. Nature, 380(6574), 499-505. Dirven, R., & Ibáñez, F. J. R. M. 2010. Looking back at 30 years of Cognitive Linguistics. In Cognitive linguistics in action (pp. 13-70): De Gruyter Mouton. Duthie, J. K., Nippold, M. A., Billow, J. L., & Mansfield, T. C. 2008. Mental imagery of concrete proverbs: A developmental study of children, adolescents, and adults. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29(1), 151-173. Eviatar, Z., & Just, M. A. 2006. Brain correlates of discourse processing: An fMRI investigation of irony and conventional metaphor comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 44(12), 2359-348. Evans, V. 2007. A glossary of cognative linguistics, Rezaei, H. & Ghandhari, M. Vol 1. Ghom, Logos. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. 1998. Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive science, 22(2), 133-187. Feldman J.A., 2006. From Molecule to Metaphor, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Fernandez-Duque D. and Johnson M.L., 1999. “Attention Metaphor’: How Metaphors Guide the Cognitive Psychology of Attention”, Cognitive Science 23(1), pp. 83-116. Fletcher, P. C., Frith, C. D., Baker, S., Shallice, T., Frackowiak, R. S., & Dolan, R. J. 1995. The mind's eye—precuneus activation in memory-related imagery. Neuroimage, 2(3), 195-200. Gagnon, L., Goulet, P., Giroux, F., & Joanette, Y. 2003. Processing of metaphoric and non-metaphoric alternative meanings of words after right-and left-hemispheric lesion. Brain and Language, 87(2), 217-226. Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. 2005. The brain's concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive neuropsychology, 22(3-4), 455-479. Gentner, D. 1983. Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive science, 7(2), 155-170. Gernsbacher, M. A., & Robertson, R. R. 1999. The role of suppression in figurative language comprehension. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(12), 1619-1630. Gibbs R.W., 1992. Categorization and Metaphor Comprehension, Psychological Review 99(3), pp. 572-577. Gibbs Jr, R. W. 2006. Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind & Language, 21(3), 434-458Giora R., 1997, “Understanding Figurative Language: The Graded Salience Hypothesis”, Cognitive Linguistics 8(3), pp. 183-206. Glucksberg S., M.S. McGlone and D. Manfredi, 1997, “Property Attribution in Metaphor Comprehension”, Journal of Memory and Language 36, pp. 50-67. Grindon C.M., N.Y. Bilenko, E.B. Myers and S.E. Blumstein, 2008, “The Role of the LIFG in Implicit Semantic Competition and Selection: An Event-Related fMRI Study”, Brain Research 10, pp. 167-178. Inhoff, A. W., Lima, S. D., & Carroll, P. J. 1984. Contextual effects on metaphor comprehension in reading. Memory & Cognition, 12(6), 558-567. Kacinik, N. A., & Chiarello, C. 2007. Understanding metaphors: Is the right hemisphere uniquely involved? Brain and Language, 100(2), 188-207. Kazmerski, V. A., Blasko, D. G., & Dessalegn, B. G. 2003. ERP and behavioral evidence of individual differences in metaphor comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 31(5), 673-689. Kintsch, W. 2000. Metaphor comprehension: A computational theory. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 7(2), 257-266. Kircher, T. T., Leube, D. T., Erb, M., Grodd, W., & Rapp, A. M. 2007. Neural correlates of metaphor processing in schizophrenia. Neuroimage, 34(1), 281-289. Kosslyn S., Behrmann, M. and Jeannerod, M. 1995. “The Cognitive Neuroscience of Mental Imagery”, Neuropsychologia 33(11), pp. 1335-1344. Lakoff G., 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Lakoff G., 1993. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor, in A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge U.P., Cambridge. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive science, 4(2), 195-208. Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. 1999. Review of Philosophy in the Flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. Computational Linguistics, 25(4), 631-634. Mashal, N., Faust, M., Hendler, T., & Jung-Beeman, M. 2007. An fMRI investigation of the neural correlates underlying the processing of novel metaphoric expressions. Brain and Language, 100(2), 115-126Matlock T., M. Ramscar and L. Boroditsky, 2005, “The Experiential Link between Spatial and Temporal Language”, Cognitive Science 29, pp. 655-664. Miller, G. 1991. Immagini e modelli, paragon e metafore. C. Cacciari (a cura di), Teorie della metafora, Milano, Raffaello Cortina, 59-123. McGlone, M. S. 1996. Conceptual metaphors and figurative language interpretation: Food for thought? Journal of memory and language, 35(4), 544-565. Nikolaenko, N. 2001. Study of metaphoric and associative thinking in children of different age groups and in patients with childhood autism. Journal of Evolutionary Biochemistry and Physiology, 39(1), 77-83. Ortony, A. 1979. Beyond literal similarity. Psychological review, 86(3), 161. Ortony A., Schallert, D.L., Reynolds, R.E. and Antos, S.J.1978. Interpreting Metaphors and Idioms: Some Effects of Context and Comprehension, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 17, pp. 465-477. Paivio, A. 1971. Imagery and Verbal Processes. Holt, Rinehart& Winston. Inc.: New York. Ramachandran, V. S., & Hubbard, E. M. 2003. Hearing colors, tasting shapes. Scientific American, 288(5), 52-59. Rapp, A. M., Leube, D. T., Erb, M., Grodd, W., & Kircher, T. T. 2004. Neural correlates of metaphor processing. Cognitive brain research, 20(3), 402-395. Rohrer T., 2005. Image Schemata in the Brain, in B. Hampe and J. Grady (eds), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, Mouton deGruyter, Berlin, pp. 165-196. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Otal, J. L. 2002. Metonymy, grammar and communication. Granada: Comares. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez F.J. and Santibáñez Sáenz, F., 2003. Content and Formal Cognitive Operations in Constructing Meaning, Rivista di Linguistica 15(2), pp. 293-320. Smith, K. A. 2008. Restructuring metaphors: using mental re-mapping in cognitive coaching. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 26(1), 16-29. Soroker, N., Kasher, A., Giora, R., Batori, G., Corn, C., Gil, M., & Zaidel, E. 2005. Processing of basic speech acts following localized brain damage: A new light on the neuroanatomy of language. Brain and cognition, 57(2), 217-4. Stemmer, B., & Schönle, P. W. 2000. Neuropragmatics in the 21st century. Brain and Language, 71(1), 233-236. Trick, L., & Katz, A. N. 1986. The domain interaction approach to metaphor processing: Relating individual differences and metaphor characteristics. Metaphor and Symbol, 1(3), 185-213. Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. 2004. Relevance theory. The handbook of pragmatics. Edited by L. Horn, G. Ward. Oxford, Blackwell, 607-632. Wilson, D., & Carston, R. 2006. Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’issue. Mind & Language, 21(3), 404-433.Yang, F. G., Edens, J., Simpson, C., & Krawczyk, D. C. (2009). Differences in task demands influence the hemispheric lateralization and neural correlates of metaphor. Brain and Language, 111(2), 114-124 Yang F.G., J. Fuller, N. Khodaparast and D.C. Krawczyk, 2010. Figurative Language Processing after Traumatic Brain Injury in Adults: A Preliminary Study, Neuropsychologia 48, pp. 1923-1929. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 117 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 268 |
||