FROM NEUROSCIENCE LABORATORY TO NEUROLOGY CLINIC

fnlnclutfuhanoglukapak

METAPHOR AND NEUROSCIENCE: METAPHOR COMPREHENSIONIN NEURODEGENERATION

Merve Dikmen1,2

1İstanbul Medipol University, Vocational School of Health Services, Program of Electroneurophysiology, İstanbul, Türkiye

2İstanbul Medipol University, Health Sciences and Technology Research Institute (SABITA), İstanbul, Türkiye

Dikmen M. Metaphor and Neuroscience: Metaphor Comprehension in Neurodegeneration. In: Hanoğlu L, editor. From Neuroscience Laboratory to Neurology Clinic. 1st ed. Ankara: Türkiye Klinikleri; 2025. p.7182.

ABSTRACT

The underlying mechanisms of the metaphor comprehension have been the subject of various disciplines for past halfcentury. In 1980, Lakoff and Johnson put forward the Conceptual Metaphor Theory that revolutionizes linguistics and cognitive science. According to their theory, the human mind is entirely structured by metaphors, extending beyond mere linguistic material to conceptual thought. Neuroscience metaphor studies are divided into Event Related Potentials (ERP) and neuroimaging studies. ERPs, primarily N400 and P600 components, are extensively reported in metaphor studies. An increase in N400 amplitude reflects semantic incongruity and the P600 which is not reported consistently in every metaphor study is thought to reflect a reanalysis of the critical word within the sentence context. Neuroimaging studies predominantly test the Right Hemisphere Theory which argue that Right Hemisphere involved in metaphor processing. Deficits in metaphorical language are observed in neuropsychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, autism, and Alzheimer’s. Abstract thinking impairments in various pathologies are explored through ERPs and neuroimaging studies related to metaphorical language dysfunction within these diseases.

Keywords: Metaphor; Evoked potentials; ERP; Neuroimaging; Alzheimers’ disease

Referanslar

  1. Lakoff G. The Invariance Hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics. 1990;3974.
  2. Clark HH, Lucy P. Understanding what is meant from what is said: A study in conversationally conveyed requests. J Verbal Learning Verbal Behav.115 1975;14(1):5672. [Crossref]
  3. Bobrow SA, Bell SM. On catching on to idiomatic expressions. Mem Cogn. 1973;1:343346. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  4. Grice HP. Logic and conversation. In: Cole P, Morgan JL, editors. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press; 1975. p.4158.
  5. Searle JR. Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1979. p. 187. [Crossref]  [PMC]
  6. Gibbs RW. Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cogn Sci. 1984;8:275-304. [Crossref]
  7. Glucksberg S. The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003;7(2):92-96. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  8. Giora R. Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cogn Linguist. 1997;8(3):183-206. [Crossref]
  9. Giora R. On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  10. Wilson D, Sperber D. Discourse coherence and theory of relevance: Stumbling blocks in search of a unified theory. Pragmatics Cogn. 1996;4(1):123146.
  11. Lakoff G, Johnson M. The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cogn Sci. 1980;4(2):195208. [Crossref]
  12. Gallese V, Lakoff G. The brain's concepts: The role of the sensorymotor system in conceptual knowledge. Cogn Neuropsychol. 2005;22(34):455-479. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  13. Lakoff G. Mapping the brain's metaphor circuitry: metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;8:958. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  14. Lakoff G, Johnson M. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1980.
  15. Bowdle BF, Gentner D. The career of metaphor. Psychol Rev. 2005;112(1):193-216. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  16. Coulson S, Van Petten,C. Conceptual integration and metaphor: An eventrelated potential study. Mem Cognit. 2002;30(6):958968. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  17. Paller KA, Kutas M. Brain potentials during memory retrieval provide neurophysiological support for the distinction between conscious recollection and priming. J Cogn Neurosci. 1992;4(4):375-391. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  18. Lau EF, Phillips C, Poeppel D. A cortical network for semantics: (De)constructing the N400. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008;9(12):920-933. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  19. Brown C, Hagoort P. The processing nature of the N400: Evidence from masked priming. J Cogn Neurosci. 1993;5(1):34-44. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  20. Coulson S, Wu YC. Right hemisphere activation of jokerelated information: An eventrelated brain potential study. J Cogn Neurosci. 2005;17(3):494-506. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  21. Kutas M, Federmeier KD. Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends Cogn Sci. 2000;4(12):463-470. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  22. Lau EF, Phillips C, Poeppel D. A cortical network for semantics: (De)constructing the N400. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008;9(12):920-933. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  23. Delogu F, Brouwer H, Crocker MW. Eventrelated potentials index lexical retrieval (N400) and integration (P600) during language comprehension. Brain Cogn. 2019;135:103569. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  24. Pynte J, Besson M, Robichon FH, Poli J. The timecourse of metaphor comprehension: An eventrelated potential study. Brain Lang. 1996;55(3):293-316. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  25. Arzouan Y, Goldstein A, Faust M. Brainwaves are stethoscopes: ERP correlates of novel metaphor comprehension. Brain Res. 2007;1160:69-81. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  26. Tartter VC, Gomes H, Dubrovsky B, Molholm S, Stewart RV. Novel metaphors appear anomalous at least momentarily: Evidence from N400. Brain Lang. 2002;80(3):488-509. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  27. Arzouan Y, Goldstein A, Faust M. Dynamics of hemispheric activity during metaphor comprehension: Electrophysiological measures. Neuroimage. 2007;36(1):222-231. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  28. Cornejo C, Simonetti F, Aldunate N, Ibáñez A, López V, Melloni L. Gesture and metaphor comprehension: Electrophysiological evidence of crossmodal coordination by audiovisual stimulation. Brain Cogn. 2009;70(1):42-52. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  29. Ibáñez A, Manes F, Escobar J, Trujillo N, Andreucci P, Haye A. Gesture influences the processing of figurative language in nonnative speakers: ERP evidence. Neurosci Lett. 2010;471(1):48-52. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  30. Holcomb PJ. Eventrelated brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. J Mem Lang. 1993;31(6):785-806. [Crossref]
  31. Hagoort P, Brown CM, Groothusen J. The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Lang Cogn Process. 1993;8(4):439-483. [Crossref]
  32. Kaan E, Harris A, Gibson E, Holcomb PJ. The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Lang Cogn Process. 2000;15(2):159-201. [Crossref]
  33. Friederici AD. The time course of syntactic activation during language processing: A model based on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data. Brain Lang. 1995;50(3):259-281. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  34. Hagoort P, Brown CM. ERP effects of listening to speech: Semantic ERP effects. Neuropsychologia. 2000;38(11):15181530. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  35. Van Berkum JJA, Hagoort P, Brown CM. Semantic integration in sentences and discourse: Evidence from the N400. J Cogn Neurosci. 1999;11(6):657671. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  36. Vos SH, Gunter TC, Kolk HHJ, Mulder G. Working memory constraints on syntactic processing: An electrophysiological investigation. Psychophysiology. 2001;38(1):4163. [Crossref]
  37. Friederici AD, Hahne A. Eventrelated brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Cogn Brain Res. 1996;4(3):183-192. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  38. MartínezFerreiro S. Cognitive science perspectives on verb representation and processing. Aphasiology. 2016;30(1):106-108.5.1052727 [Crossref]
  39. Hahne A, Friederici AD. Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled processes. J Cogn Neurosci. 1999;11(2):194-205. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  40. Neville H, Nicol JL, Barss A, Forster KI, Garrett MF. Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from eventrelated brain potentials. J Cogn Neurosci. 1991;3(2):151-165. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  41. Kaan E, Swaab TY. Repair, revision, and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation. J Cogn Neurosci. 2003;15(1):98-110. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  42. Kuperberg GR, Sitnikova T, Caplan D, Holcomb PJ. Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cogn Brain Res. 2003;17(1):117129. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  43. Smits LL, van Harten AC, Pijnenburg YA, Koedam EL, Bouwman FH, Sistermans N, et al. Trajectories of cognitive decline in different types of dementia. Psychol Med. 2015;45(5):10511059. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  44. Stroud C, Phillips C. Examining the evidence for an independent semantic analyzer: An ERP study in Spanish. Brain Lang. 2012;120(2):108-126. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  45. Chow WY, Phillips C. No semantic illusions in the semantic P600 phenomenon: ERP evidence from Mandarin Chinese. Brain Res. 2013;1506:7693. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  46. DeLong KA, Quante L, Kutas M. Predictability, plausibility, and two late ERP positivities during written sentence comprehension. Neuropsychologia. 2014;61:150162. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  47. Kuperberg GR. Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Res. 2007;1146:2349. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  48. Iakimova G, Passerieux C, Laurent JP, HardyBaylé MC. ERPs of metaphoric, literal, and incongruous semantic processing in schizophrenia. Psychophysiology. 2005;42(4):380390. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  49. De Grauwe S, Swain A, Holcomb PJ, Ditman T, Kuperberg GR. Electrophysiological insights into the processing of nominal metaphors. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48(7):19651984. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  50. Goldstein A, Arzouan Y, Faust M. Killing a novel metaphor and reviving a dead one: ERP correlates of metaphor conventionalization. Brain Lang. 2012;123(2):137142. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  51. Yang FPG, Bradley K, Huq M, Wu DL, Krawczyk DC. Contextual effects on conceptual blending in metaphors: An eventrelated potential study. J Neurolinguistics. 2013;26(2):312326. [Crossref]
  52. De Grauwe S, Swain A, Holcomb PJ, Ditman T, Kuperberg GR. Electrophysiological insights into the processing of nominal metaphors. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48(7):19651984. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  53. Brouwer H, Fitz H, Hoeks J. Getting real about semantic illusions: Rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. Brain Res. 2012;1446:127143. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  54. Bookheimer S. Functional MRI of language: New approaches to understanding the cortical organization of semantic processing. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2002;25:151188. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  55. Beeman M, Friedman RB, Grafman J, Perez E, Diamond S, Lindsay MB. Summation priming and coarse semantic coding in the right hemisphere. J Cogn Neurosci. 1994;6(1):2645. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  56. JungBeeman M. Bilateral brain processes for comprehending natural language. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005;9(11):512518. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  57. Bohrn IC, Altmann U, Jacobs AM. Looking at the brains behind figurative language: A quantitative metaanalysis of neuroimaging studies on metaphor, idiom, and irony processing. Neuropsychologia. 2012;50(11):26692683. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  58. Bottini G, Corcoran R, Sterzi R, Paulesu E, Schenone P, Scarpa P, et al. The role of the right hemisphere in the interpretation of figurative aspects of language: A positron emission tomography activation study. Brain. 1994;117(6):12411253. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  59. Fletcher PC, Frith CD, Baker SC, Shallice T, Frackowiak RS, Dolan RJ. The mind's eye-Precuneus activation in memoryrelated imagery. Neuroimage. 1995;2(3):195200. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  60. Yang J. The role of the right hemisphere in metaphor comprehension: A metaanalysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies. Hum Brain Mapp. 2014;35(1):107122. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  61. Cardillo ER, Watson CE, Schmidt GL, Kranjec A, Chatterjee A. From novel to familiar: Tuning the brain for metaphors. Neuroimage. 2012;59(4):32123221. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  62. Hauk O, Pulvermüller F. The lateralization of motor cortex activation to actionwords. Front Hum Neurosci. 2011;5:149. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  63. Fernandino L, Iacoboni M. Are cortical motor maps based on body parts or coordinated actions? Implications for embodied semantics. Brain Lang. 2010;112(1):4453. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  64. Eviatar Z, Just MA. Brain correlates of discourse processing: An fMRI investigation of irony and conventional metaphor comprehension. Neuropsychologia. 2006;44(12):23482359. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  65. Stringaris AK, Medford N, Giampietro V, Brammer MJ, David AS. How metaphors influence semantic relatedness judgments: The role of the right frontal cortex. Neuroimage. 2006;33(2):784793. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  66. Stringaris AK, Medford NC, Giampietro V, Brammer MJ, David AS. Deriving meaning: Distinct neural mechanisms for metaphoric, literal, and nonmeaningful sentences. Brain Lang. 2007;100(2):150162. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  67. Bambini V, Gentili C, Ricciardi E, Bertinetto PM, Pietrini P. Decomposing metaphor processing at the cognitive and neural level through functional magnetic resonance imaging. Brain Res Bull. 2011;86(34):203216. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  68. Rapp AM, Leube DT, Erb M, Grodd W, Kircher TTJ. Neural correlates of metaphor processing. Cogn Brain Res. 2004;20(3):395402. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  69. Lee SS, Dapretto M. Metaphorical vs. literal word mean ings: fMRI evidence against a selective role of the right hemisphere. Neuroimage. 2006;29(2):536544. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  70. Kircher TTJ, Leube DT, Erb M, Grodd W, Rapp AM. Neural correlates of metaphor processing in schizophrenia. Neuroimage. 2007;34(1):281289. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  71. Winner E, Gardner H. The comprehension of metaphor in braindamaged patients. Brain. 1977;100(4):717729. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  72. Roupas D, Brownell HH, Gardner H, Gardner H. Comprehension of familiar phrases by leftbut not by righthemisphere damaged patients. Brain Lang. 1987;32(2):265277. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  73. Coulson S. Metaphor comprehension and the brain: Empirical studies. In: Gibbs RW Jr, editor. The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008. p. 177194.10926488.2011.535420 [Crossref]
  74. Brownell HH, Potter HH, Bihrle AM, Gardner H. Inference deficits in right braindamaged patients. Brain Lang. 1986;27(2):310321. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  75. Gagnon L, Goulet P, Giroux F, Joanette Y. Processing of metaphoric and nonmetaphoric alternative meanings of words after rightand lefthemispheric lesion. Brain Lang. 2003;87(2):217226. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  76. Papagno C. Comprehension of metaphors and idioms in patients with Alzheimer's disease: A longitudinal study. Brain. 2001;124(7):14501460. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  77. Papagno C, Tabossi P, Colombo MR, Zampetti P. Idiom comprehension in aphasic patients. Brain Lang. 2004;89(1):226234. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  78. Adamczyk P, Janik A, Koźniewska E, Mikulska J, Frydecka D, Średniawa W, et al. On the role of bilateral brain hypofunction and abnormal lateralization of cortical information flow as neural underpinnings of conventional metaphor processing impairment in schizophrenia: An fMRI and EEG study. Brain Topogr. 2021;34(4):537554. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  79. Chouinard B, Volden J, Cribben I, Cummine J. Neurological evaluation of the selection stage of metaphor comprehension in individuals with and without autism spectrum disorder. Neuroscience. 2017;361:1933. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  80. Towne RL, Entwisle LM. Metaphoric comprehension in adolescents with traumatic brain injury and in adolescents with language learning disability. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 1993;24(2):100107.1461.2402.100 [Crossref]
  81. Amanzio M, Geminiani G, Leotta D, Cappa SF. Metaphor comprehension in Alzheimer's disease: Novelty matters. Brain Lang. 2008;107(1):110. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  82. Happé FG. Communicative competence and theory of mind in autism: A test of relevance theory. Cognition. 1993;48(2):101119. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  83. Gold R, Faust M, Goldstein A. Semantic integration during metaphor comprehension in Asperger syndrome. Brain Lang. 2010;113(2):124134. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  84. Kay SR, Fiszbein A, Opler LA. The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 1987;13(2):261276. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  85. Rapp AM, Felsenheimer AK, Langohr K, Klupp M. The comprehension of familiar and novel metaphoric meanings in schizophrenia: A pilot study. Front Psychol. 2018;8:2253. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  86. Fukuhara K, Saito S, Iwadate T, Ishibashi N, Nakajima S, Okada T, et al. Impaired interpretation of others' behavior is associated with difficulties in recognizing pragmatic language in patients with schizophrenia. J Psycholinguist Res. 2017;46(6):13091318. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  87. Strandburg RJ, Marsh JT, Brown WS, Asarnow RF, Higa J, Harper R. Eventrelated potential correlates of linguistic information processing in schizophrenics. Biol Psychiatry. 1997;42(1):596608. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  88. Schneider S, Debener S, Oostenveld R, Engel AK. Enhanced EEG gammaband activity reflects multisensory semantic matching and predicts strong multisensory integration. Neuroimage. 2008;42(1):149160. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  89. Grillon C, Ameli R, Glazer WM. N400 and semantic catego rization in schizophrenia. Biol Psychiatry. 1991;29(5):467480. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  90. Bayles KA, Tomoeda CK, Cruz RF, Mahendra N, McKnight PE, Azuma T. Language impairment in dementia of the Alzheimer type: A hierarchical decline? J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2000;6(5): 1-9.
  91. Leyhe T, Saur R, Eschweiler GW, Milian M. Impairment in proverb interpretation as an executive function deficit in patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment and early Alzheimer's disease. Dement Geriatr Cogn Dis Extra. 2011;1(1):51-61. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  92. Maki Y, Yamaguchi T, Koeda T, Yamaguchi H. Communicative competence in Alzheimer's disease: Metaphor and sarcasm comprehension. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2013;28(1):69-74. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  93. Roncero C, de Almeida RG. The importance of being apt: Metaphor comprehension in Alzheimer's disease. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;8:973. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]