College of Foreign Languages, Shanghai Maritime University, Shanghai, China.
Sackler Centre for Consciousness Science, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK; Department of Psychiatry, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK.
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2021 Jun;125:314-327. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.02.023. Epub 2021 Feb 22.
Mental processes are recognized to be embodied, hence dependent upon functions of the body. Interoception (i.e., the sense of the internal bodily physiology) underpinning motivational states and emotional feelings, however, are mostly ignored within present sensory-motor accounts of embodiment. The inclusion of interoception within models of embodiment is important both for health psychology and for theories of cognition. Here, we deduce that reference to visceral organs, in language describing emotion concepts, should be viewed as metonymy (i.e., the mental mapping wherein a component is used to describe the whole), rather than metaphor (i.e., one familiar and concrete concept used to describe another unfamiliar and/or abstract concept that shares some similarities). This view contrasts with a dominant assumption within cognitive linguistics. We further argue that conceptual differences in the assumption about the body-mind-emotion relationship or emotional somatization, evident when comparing Chinese to standard English, is culturally and cognitively determined (e.g., by divergent Western and Chinese philosophical, medical traditions and meaning systems). We propose a new model in which two contending variables, bodily transparency and cognitive granularity, define cultural differences in emotion conceptualization, capturing the dynamic multidimensional interaction between body, mind, brain, language, and society.
心理过程被认为是具体的,因此依赖于身体的功能。然而,在目前关于体现的感觉-运动解释中,内感受(即对内部身体生理学的感知)支撑动机状态和情绪感受的部分大多被忽视。将内感受纳入体现模型对于健康心理学和认知理论都很重要。在这里,我们推断,在描述情感概念的语言中,对内脏器官的提及应该被视为转喻(即心理映射,其中一个组成部分用于描述整体),而不是隐喻(即一个熟悉和具体的概念用于描述另一个不熟悉和/或抽象的概念,它们有一些相似之处)。这种观点与认知语言学中的一个主要假设形成对比。我们进一步认为,在比较中文和标准英语时,关于身心情绪关系或情绪躯体化的假设的概念差异是由文化和认知决定的(例如,通过西方和中国哲学、医学传统和意义系统的不同)。我们提出了一个新的模型,其中两个相互竞争的变量,身体透明度和认知粒度,定义了情感概念化的文化差异,捕捉了身体、心理、大脑、语言和社会之间动态的多维相互作用。