隱喻熟悉度以及個人心像認知能力對於理解動作隱喻之影響:事件相關電位研究

在此研究中，我們使用事件相關電位來探討動作感覺經驗(sensory motor experience)是否會如影響動作相關語詞的理解一般，影響動作相關的隱喻(action-related metaphor)之理解。此一議題在文獻上並未達到共識，即使隱喻本身不表達任何實際具體動作的意義，有些文獻指出隱喻理解的同時會活化動作感覺相關的腦區(sensory motor systems)，然而，有些文獻認為動作感覺相關的腦區並未涉入隱喻的解讀，也有一些文獻進一步提到，是否有動作感覺腦區的激發端看人們對隱喻的熟悉程度(metaphor familiarity)，熟悉程度越高，隱喻的理解越不需要依靠動作感覺經驗。因而，在我們的實驗當中，我們操弄第一個變項──隱喻的熟悉程度。另外，根據之前的研究指出個人的心像能力皆有所差異(individual’s mental imagery ability)，而我們認為心像形成的能力亦會影響到動作感覺經驗涉入的程度，所以我們進一步操弄個人的心像認知能力，做為我們第二個變項。實驗當中，我們探究這兩個變項如何影響隱喻理解，此外，我們也分析了這兩個變項的交互作用─探討不同的心像能力對熟悉度高的隱喻(familiar metaphor)及熟悉度低的隱喻(unfamiliar metaphor)帶來的理解歷程上的差異。　　以視覺意像生動程度量表(VVIQ-2) 結果的中位數作為標準，我們將受試者分為高心像形成能力與低心像形成能力兩大組別。受試者將看到四種語意情境(condition)：(1)表達具體動作的句子(literal sentence) (2)熟悉度高的隱喻 (3)熟悉度低的隱喻 (4)表達抽象概念的句子(abstract sentence)。句子結束後1000毫秒，受試者會再看到一個與句中動詞字面意相關或不相關的probe，受試者必須做語意關聯度判斷作業，判斷probe 是否與整句話語意相關。我們在受試者閱讀句子的同時記錄他們的腦波，發現此量表的成績與表達具體動作的句子所引發出來的圖像效果(imagery effects)，在刺激出現後的200-750毫秒呈現正相關，確立了分組的標準無慮。　　實驗的結果顯示，高心像形成能力的受試者在熟悉度低的隱喻的情境底下引發較持續的圖像效果(350-550ms)；然而，熟悉度高的隱喻所引起的圖像效果較為短暫(350-450ms)。相反地，低心像能力的受試者在理解隱喻時，並未引發任何圖像效果，只有在理解熟悉度低的隱喻時，引發較早的 N400 mismatch effect。儘管兩組受試者在理解的歷程或使用的神經機制(mechanism)上有差異，他們在隱喻理解的一些指標，比如說熟悉度低的隱喻當中引發的LPC效果(450-750ms)（文獻認為LPC表示隱喻當中的字面意所造成與隱喻語境(metaphorical context)之間的衝突已經或正在被解決），以及在probe上引發的N400效果表現皆相似（在隱喻的情境底下，N400的振幅在與句中動詞字面意相關及不相關的probes上沒有差異，表示字面意義在刺激出現後一秒時已經被抑制），在隱喻改寫測驗上的表現亦無差異。　　綜觀以上，我們的實驗結果顯示，隱喻的熟悉度以及個人心像形成的能力接對隱喻的理解有所影響。根據心像形成的能力，受試者會採取不同的神經機制來理解動作相關之隱喻。擁有較好心像能力者，無論是在處理熟悉度較高或熟悉度較低的隱喻時，皆傾向利用自身的動作感覺經驗來理解隱喻，只是熟悉度較低的隱喻所引起的心像模擬持續較久。然而，心像形成能力較差者，傾向採用普遍的語意處理機制(general semantic access mechanisms)來理解隱喻，在處理熟悉度較低的隱喻時，他們會利用字面意來幫助理解抽象的隱喻意義，反之，在處理熟悉度較高的隱喻時，因隱喻的抽象意義顯而易見(high salient)，以致隱喻涵義可以直接被取得。在此研究當中，無論採取哪種神經機制，都可以成功地獲取隱喻的抽象涵意，然而，是否採用不同的神經機制將影響到不同層面的，如對話當中，或篇章結構內的隱喻理解，需待未來的研究多加探討。

關鍵字

隱喻理解歷程；字面意的激發；熟悉度高的隱喻；熟悉度低的隱喻；動作感覺的模擬(sensory-motor simulation) ；心像形成能力；圖像效果

並列摘要

Whether sensory-motor experiences are involved in comprehending figurative sentences when no actual physical actions are implied has been controversial. This present study took a first step to investigate whether individual’s mental imagery ability, in addition to metaphor familiarity, affect the degree of sensory-motor involvement during action metaphor comprehension. We assessed participants’ mental imagery ability using the Vividness of Mental Imagery Questionnaire-2 (VVIQ-2) and assessed the ERP mental imagery effects while participants read (1) literal, (2) familiar metaphor, (3) unfamiliar metaphor, and (4) abstract sentences. Sentences were presented one word at a time on a computer screen. A probe literally related or unrelated to the sentence final predicate was presented 1000ms post the onset of the sentence final critical word. Participants pressed buttons to decide whether the probe was related to the sentential message of the preceding sentence. The ERP mental imagery effect (200-750ms) in the literal relative to the abstract condition was reliably correlated with the VVIQ scores. Results based on a median split of the VVIQ scores demonstrated that High VVIQ participants showed ERP frontal imagery effects that is prolonged in unfamiliar metaphor condition but restricted in time in familiar metaphor condition. Low VVIQ participants showed no imagery effects in either metaphor conditions, but instead an early posterior N400 mismatch effect (200-350ms) in unfamiliar metaphor condition. Despite these processing differences, the two groups were comparable in metaphor comprehension measures, such as larger LPC to unfamiliar metaphors than literal sentences (indicating attempts to resolve the conflict between literal and metaphorical meanings), no N400 reductions to literal-related probes in the metaphor conditions (indicating successful inhibition of the literal meanings), and high accuracy in the offline metaphor paraphrasing task. Together, these results suggest that depending on individual’s mental imagery ability, one may incline to simulate the sensory-motor experiences associated with the literal action meanings during action metaphors comprehension, or alternatively, approach the metaphors based on more general semantic access mechanisms, and that both processing approaches are modulated by metaphor familiarity. For people who adopt the more imagery/simulation approach, embodied experiences are routinely recruited to facilitate metaphor comprehension, and to a greater extent for unfamiliar metaphors than familiar ones. On the other hand, people who approach the metaphors based on more general semantic access mechanisms tend to obtain the metaphorical meanings by initially activating the literal meanings of unfamiliar metaphors or, due to the high salience of metaphorical meaning, by directly accessing the figurative meanings of familiar metaphors. In spite of the different processing styles, at least with the measures used here, both processing approaches lead to successful comprehension outcome. However, whether these processing styles may affect comprehension in more global contexts such as discourse or conversation would require further research.

並列關鍵字

metaphor processing ； literal interpretation ； familiar metaphor ； unfamiliar metaphor ； sensory-motor simulation ； mental imagery ； ERP concreteness effect

參考文獻

Amanzio, M., Geminiani, G., Leotta, D., & Cappa, S. (2008). Metaphor comprehension in Alzheimer’s disease: Novelty matters. Brain and language,107(1), 1-10.

Arzouan, Y., Goldstein, A., & Faust, M. (2007). Brainwaves are stethoscopes: ERP correlates of novel metaphor comprehension. Brain research, 1160, 69-81.

Aziz-Zadeh, L., Wilson, S. M., Rizzolatti, G., & Iacoboni, M. (2006). Congruent embodied representations for visually presented actions and linguistic phrases describing actions. Current biology, 16(18), 1818-1823.

Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptions of perceptual symbols. Behavioral and brain sciences, 22(04), 637-660.

Beeman, M. (1998). Coarse semantic coding and discourse comprehension. In M.

國際替代計量

隱喻熟悉度以及個人心像認知能力對於理解動作隱喻之影響:事件相關電位研究

全文下載

主題瀏覽