Max-Planck-Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, PO Box 500 355 D-04303 Leipzig, Germany.
Brain Res. 2010 Jan 22;1311:121-35. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2009.10.077. Epub 2009 Nov 10.
An important issue in irony comprehension concerns when and how listeners integrate extra-linguistic and linguistic information to compute the speaker's intended meaning. To assess whether knowledge about the speaker's communicative style impacts the brain response to irony, ERPs were recorded as participants read short passages that ended either with literal or ironic statements made by one of two speakers. The experiment was carried out in two sessions in which each speaker's use of irony was manipulated. In Session 1, 70% of ironic statements were made by the ironic speaker, while the non-ironic speaker expressed 30% of them. For irony by the non-ironic speaker, an increased P600 was observed relative to literal utterances. By contrast, both ironic and literal statements made by the ironic speaker elicited similar P600 amplitudes. In Session 2, conducted 1 day later, both speakers' use of irony was balanced (i.e. 50% ironic, 50% literal). ERPs for Session 2 showed an irony-related P600 for the ironic speaker but not for the non-ironic speaker. Moreover, P200 amplitude was larger for sentences congruent with each speaker's communicative style (i.e. for irony made by the ironic speaker, and for literal statements made by the non-ironic speaker). These findings indicate that pragmatic knowledge about speakers can affect language comprehension 200 ms after the onset of a critical word, as well as neurocognitive processes underlying the later stages of comprehension (500-900 ms post-onset). Thus perceived speakers' characteristics dynamically impact the construction of appropriate interpretations of ironic utterances.
反语理解中的一个重要问题涉及到听者何时以及如何整合语言外和语言信息来计算说话者的意图。为了评估对说话者交际风格的了解是否会影响大脑对反语的反应,研究人员记录了参与者阅读短文时的事件相关电位(ERP),这些短文的结尾是由两个说话者中的一个说出的字面或反语陈述。该实验在两个会话中进行,每个会话都操纵了说话者的反语使用。在会话 1 中,70%的反语陈述是由反语说话者说出的,而不使用反语的说话者表达了 30%的反语陈述。对于不使用反语的说话者的反语,与字面陈述相比,观察到 P600 增加。相比之下,反语说话者说出的反语和字面陈述都引起了相似的 P600 幅度。在第二天进行的会话 2 中,平衡了两个说话者的反语使用(即 50%的反语,50%的字面)。会话 2 的 ERP 显示,对于反语说话者,反语相关的 P600 出现,但对于不使用反语的说话者则没有。此外,对于与每个说话者的交际风格一致的句子,P200 幅度更大(即反语说话者的反语和不使用反语的说话者的字面陈述)。这些发现表明,关于说话者的语用知识可以在关键单词出现后 200 毫秒影响语言理解,也可以影响理解后期阶段的神经认知过程(关键单词出现后 500-900 毫秒)。因此,感知到的说话者特征会动态地影响对反语话语的适当解释的构建。