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.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
68.6
/100
192 views
154 readers
Trending
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #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 mintedCreate 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
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.