A Review of Studies Supporting Metaphorical Embodiment.

Omid Khatin-Zadeh, Danyal Farsani, Jiehui Hu, Zahra Eskandari, Yanjiao Zhu, Hassan Banaruee
Author Information
  1. Omid Khatin-Zadeh: School of Foreign Languages, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610054, China. ORCID
  2. Danyal Farsani: Department of Teacher Education, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway.
  3. Jiehui Hu: School of Foreign Languages, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610054, China.
  4. Zahra Eskandari: Department of English, Chabahar Maritime University, Chabahar 99717-56499, Iran.
  5. Yanjiao Zhu: School of Foreign Languages, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610054, China.
  6. Hassan Banaruee: Department of English, American, and Celtic Studies, University of Bonn, 53115 Bonn, Germany. ORCID

Abstract

This paper presents a review of studies that have provided evidence supporting metaphorical embodiment. These studies are divided into three categories of behavioral, neuroimaging, and corpus studies. After summing up the findings of these studies, it is concluded that metaphorical embodiment is supported by these three lines of research. This is followed by a review of a number of studies that have measured sensorimotor and action effector strengths of various concepts. Then, the idea of sensorimotor and action effector strength of concepts is linked to metaphorical embodiment to present the main idea of the paper. Based on the findings of studies that have measured sensorimotor and action effector strengths of concepts, it is suggested that the degree of involvement of sensorimotor systems in mental simulation of metaphoric actions may not be at the same level in all metaphors. It depends on the sensorimotor strength of the base of the metaphor in various modalities. If the base of a metaphor has a high degree of perceptual strength in a certain modality, that modality plays the most important role in the processing of that metaphor, while other modalities take less important roles. In other words, depending on the sensorimotor strengths of the base of a metaphor in various modalities, those modalities have various levels of importance in the processing of that metaphor. If the base of the metaphor is weak in all modalities, modal resources can come into play to process that metaphor.

Keywords

References

  1. Brain Lang. 2008 Oct;107(1):62-7 [PMID: 17935771]
  2. Neuroimage. 2012 Feb 15;59(4):3502-13 [PMID: 22100772]
  3. Behav Res Methods. 2020 Jun;52(3):1271-1291 [PMID: 31832879]
  4. Neuroimage. 2012 Jan 2;59(1):872-9 [PMID: 21839843]
  5. Psychon Bull Rev. 2022 Dec;29(6):2052-2069 [PMID: 35697914]
  6. Lang Cogn Process. 2012 May 1;27(4):594-610 [PMID: 23700353]
  7. Front Psychol. 2015 Jan 22;6:12 [PMID: 25657635]
  8. Cogn Sci. 2007 Sep 10;31(5):733-64 [PMID: 21635316]
  9. Open Neuroimag J. 2010 Jul 08;4:46-52 [PMID: 21379399]
  10. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2008 Jun;61(6):825-50 [PMID: 18470815]
  11. Cereb Cortex. 2009 Aug;19(8):1905-14 [PMID: 19068489]
  12. Cogn Sci. 2016 Sep;40(7):1648-1670 [PMID: 26521979]
  13. Cogn Sci. 2006 Nov 12;30(6):1097-112 [PMID: 21702848]
  14. Cogn Neuropsychol. 2005 May;22(3):455-79 [PMID: 21038261]
  15. Int J Psychol Res (Medellin). 2018 Jul-Dec;11(2):77-85 [PMID: 32612781]
  16. J Psycholinguist Res. 2018 Jun;47(3):641-661 [PMID: 29282595]
  17. Behav Sci (Basel). 2023 Feb 11;13(2): [PMID: 36829384]
  18. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2008 Oct;32(8):1373-95 [PMID: 18603299]
  19. Psychol Res. 2022 Nov;86(8):2417-2433 [PMID: 34762153]
  20. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Dec 16;8:958 [PMID: 25566012]
  21. Brain Lang. 2011 Dec;119(3):149-57 [PMID: 21684590]
  22. Neuroimage. 2010 Aug 15;52(2):677-85 [PMID: 20420931]
  23. Behav Sci (Basel). 2023 Feb 15;13(2): [PMID: 36829403]
  24. Front Psychol. 2021 Apr 09;12:647899 [PMID: 33897555]
  25. Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Sep;9(3):558-65 [PMID: 12412897]
  26. Neuroimage. 2013 Dec;83:862-9 [PMID: 23891645]
  27. Cogn Sci. 2014 Mar;38(2):367-82 [PMID: 24795958]
  28. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2008 Jun;61(6):905-19 [PMID: 18470821]
  29. Brain Res. 2019 Jul 1;1714:202-209 [PMID: 30853628]
  30. Cognition. 2008 Dec;109(3):408-15 [PMID: 18976986]
  31. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2014;67(8):1527-40 [PMID: 24547790]
  32. PLoS One. 2019 Feb 20;14(2):e0211336 [PMID: 30785906]
  33. Cogn Sci. 2007 Jul 8;31(4):721-31 [PMID: 21635315]
  34. Front Psychol. 2019 Feb 26;10:371 [PMID: 30863346]
  35. Behav Sci (Basel). 2022 Jul 18;12(7): [PMID: 35877309]
  36. PLoS One. 2013 Jun 21;8(6):e67187 [PMID: 23805299]
  37. Cogn Sci. 2017 Aug;41(6):1613-1628 [PMID: 27859508]
  38. Neuroimage. 2017 Jan 1;144(Pt A):174-182 [PMID: 27554528]
  39. Laterality. 2009 Jan;14(1):30-54 [PMID: 18608849]
  40. Cognition. 2005 Jan;94(3):B79-89 [PMID: 15617669]
  41. Psychol Res. 2001 Nov;65(4):235-41 [PMID: 11789427]
  42. Neuroimage. 2013 Dec;83:361-71 [PMID: 23792983]
  43. Psychon Bull Rev. 2016 Aug;23(4):1109-21 [PMID: 25832355]
  44. Cortex. 2002 Jun;38(3):357-78 [PMID: 12146661]
  45. Behav Res Methods. 2019 Oct;51(5):2094-2105 [PMID: 31016685]
  46. Psychol Sci. 2001 Nov;12(6):516-22 [PMID: 11760141]
  47. Psychol Sci. 2002 Mar;13(2):185-9 [PMID: 11934006]
  48. Front Psychol. 2018 Jul 23;9:1242 [PMID: 30083120]
  49. Brain Topogr. 2016 Jan;29(1):94-107 [PMID: 25681159]
  50. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2022 Oct;230:103712 [PMID: 36103797]
  51. Front Psychol. 2021 Jun 11;12:667271 [PMID: 34177725]
  52. Psychon Bull Rev. 2019 Jun;26(3):721-752 [PMID: 30511231]
  53. Hum Brain Mapp. 2019 Jun 1;40(8):2449-2463 [PMID: 30702203]
  54. Psychon Bull Rev. 2008 Jun;15(3):495-514 [PMID: 18567247]
  55. Top Cogn Sci. 2012 Oct;4(4):773-85 [PMID: 22961950]
  56. Behav Sci (Basel). 2022 Apr 29;12(5): [PMID: 35621426]
  57. Front Psychol. 2013 May 21;4:272 [PMID: 23734134]
  58. Neuropsychologia. 2011 Jun;49(7):1730-40 [PMID: 21396384]
  59. Front Psychol. 2022 Aug 30;13:957426 [PMID: 36110272]
  60. Trends Cogn Sci. 2013 Sep;17(9):458-70 [PMID: 23932069]
  61. Neuropsychologia. 2021 Aug 20;159:107955 [PMID: 34252418]
  62. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2014;67(8):1514-26 [PMID: 24833320]
  63. Cognition. 2007 Jan;102(1):129-38 [PMID: 16434031]
  64. J Cogn Neurosci. 2011 Sep;23(9):2376-86 [PMID: 21126156]
  65. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2008 Jun;61(6):883-95 [PMID: 18470819]
  66. Front Psychol. 2018 Aug 07;9:1267 [PMID: 30131733]
  67. Trends Neurosci. 1989 Oct;12(10):395-9 [PMID: 2479137]

Grants

  1. NTNU/Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0sensorimotormetaphorstudiesmodalitiesmetaphoricalembodimentvariousstrengthbaseactioneffectorstrengthsconceptspaperreviewthreefindingsmeasuredideadegreesystemssimulationmodalityimportantprocessingpresentsprovidedevidencesupportingdividedcategoriesbehavioralneuroimagingcorpussummingconcludedsupportedlinesresearchfollowednumberlinkedpresentmainBasedsuggestedinvolvementmentalmetaphoricactionsmaylevelmetaphorsdependshighperceptualcertainplaysroletakelessroleswordsdependinglevelsimportanceweakmodalresourcescancomeplayprocessReviewStudiesSupportingMetaphoricalEmbodiment

Similar Articles

Cited By (2)