Department of Psychology, Institute for Mind and Brain, University of South Carolina, Discovery I Building, Rm 227, 915 Greene St, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA.
Psychol Res. 2022 Nov;86(8):2417-2433. doi: 10.1007/s00426-021-01604-4.
concepts can potentially be represented using metaphorical mappings to concrete domains. This view predicts that when linguistic metaphors are processed, they will invoke sensory-motor simulations. Here, I examine evidence from neuroimaging and lesion studies that addresses whether metaphors in language are embodied in this manner. Given the controversy in this area, I first outline some criteria by which the quality of neuroimaging and lesion studies might be evaluated. I then review studies of metaphors in various sensory-motor domains, such as action, motion, texture, taste, and time, and examine their strengths and weaknesses. Studies of idioms are evaluated next. I also address some neuroimaging studies that can speak to the question of metaphoric conceptual organization without explicit use of linguistic metaphors. I conclude that the weight of the evidence suggests that metaphors are indeed grounded in sensory-motor systems. The case of idioms is less clear, and I suggest that they might be grounded in a qualitatively different manner than metaphors at higher levels of the action hierarchy. While metaphors are unlikely to explain all aspects of abstract concept representation, for some specific abstract concepts, there is also nonlinguistic neural evidence for metaphoric conceptual organization.
概念可以通过隐喻映射到具体领域来表示。这种观点预测，当语言隐喻被处理时，它们将引发感觉运动模拟。在这里，我通过神经影像学和损伤研究来检验是否以这种方式体现了语言中的隐喻。鉴于该领域存在争议，我首先概述了一些评估神经影像学和损伤研究质量的标准。然后，我回顾了各种感觉运动领域（如动作、运动、质地、味道和时间）的隐喻研究，并检查了它们的优缺点。接下来评估习语的研究。我还讨论了一些神经影像学研究，这些研究可以在不明确使用语言隐喻的情况下探讨隐喻概念组织的问题。我得出的结论是，有大量证据表明隐喻确实是基于感觉运动系统的。习语的情况则不太清楚，我认为它们可能以与动作层次结构更高层次的隐喻不同的方式为基础。虽然隐喻不太可能解释抽象概念表示的所有方面，但对于某些特定的抽象概念，也有非语言的神经证据表明隐喻的概念组织。
