The Pragmatics of Pragmatic Language and the Curse of Ambiguity: An fMRI Study.

Clicks: 192
ID: 36283
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #17 of 21 articles by views in neuroscience

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
In pragmatic language, there is an intentional distinction between the literal meaning of what is said, and what the speaker actually means. Previous neuroimaging investigations of pragmatic language have contrasted it with literal language; however, such contrasts may have been confounded by the higher levels of ambiguity in pragmatic language. Here, we used functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) to compare pragmatic sentences (specifically requiring the interpretation of nonliteral meaning in the form of hints) with unintentionally ambiguous scenarios. Analysis showed that ambiguous language activated brain areas recognised to play a role in generating a theory of mind (ToM) that have previously been argued to support understanding of pragmatic language, specifically medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), and temporoparietal junction (TPJ). In contrast, the pragmatic scenarios drew on anterior temporal, superior parietal lobule, in addition to precuneus. While no effect of gender was found for unintentionally ambiguous stimuli, females showed greater activity than males within mPFC and IFG for pragmatic scenarios - regions thought to be involved in cognitive and affective empathy, respectively. Findings suggest that while areas underpinning ToM are sufficient to support meaning derivation in the context of ambiguity, reasoning about pragmatic intent is more reliant on access to self-referential memory.
Reference Key
powell2019theneuroscience Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Powell, Joanne L;Furlong, Joe;de Bézenac, Christophe E;O'Sullivan, Noreen;Corcoran, Rhiannon;
Journal neuroscience
Year 2019
DOI
S0306-4522(19)30614-1
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.