Metaphorical language processing and amygdala activation in non-native and native speakers

Key Question Being Explored in This Insight:

Francesca Citron discusses the neural correlates of processing conventional figurative language in non-native speakers in a comparison with native speakers.

View the page of: Francesca Citron

Institution: Lancaster University

Explore more insights in:

Behavioural Neuroscience Language and Memory Psychology Social Sciences

Media Literacy Toolkit

Faculti's Media Literacy Toolkit helps viewers critically engage with academic insights by analyzing the research context, identifying perspectives, and encouraging thoughtful evaluation.

Critical Questions to Consider ▼

What assumptions does the research make?
Are there alternative perspectives not explored?
What are the limitations of the research method?

Bias and Perspective Awareness ▼

This research comes from Lancaster University . Reflect on how the institution's academic focus and research partnerships may shape the questions being explored.

Further Reading ▼

Read the Study

Francesca Citron discusses the neural correlates of processing conventional figurative language in non-native speakers in a comparison with native speakers.

Image courtesy of interviewee. July 12, 2024

Log-in or Sign-up to Faculti
Currently viewing this subject insight as a guest. You have insight(s) remaining for this month. Login to view 8000+ figures on the platform.

Generating Workspace...

Export as PDF

The study aims to explore how metaphors are processed by second language speakers compared to native speakers, specifically looking at the neural networks involved and whether second language speakers experience the same rhetorical advantages. Conventional metaphors help convey abstract concepts in more concrete terms, facilitating understanding.

The research differentiates between various degrees of metaphorical and literal language, investigating how second language speakers process these expressions during comprehension tasks. The study finds that second language speakers activate the language network more strongly due to the additional demands of processing a second language, and they also engage the switching network to manage interference from their native language.

Key findings include that second language speakers do not differentiate as well between metaphorical and literal expressions as native speakers, showing reduced emotional engagement with metaphors. They utilized similar neural pathways for both types of expressions but with lesser differentiation. The study suggests investigating novel metaphors and the time course of effective engagement in future research, aiming to understand how quickly emotional engagement occurs in processing these expressions.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.185 --> 00:03.085
So the aims of the study, are to look at,

00:03.105 --> 00:06.165
how metaphors are processed by second language speakers.

00:06.545 --> 00:08.645
Do they use the same, neural network

00:08.715 --> 00:10.125
that native speakers used?

00:10.905 --> 00:13.125
And, do,

00:13.145 --> 00:15.765
second language speakers enjoy the same rhetorical

00:15.765 --> 00:18.885
advantage, that is found in native speakers?

00:19.465 --> 00:22.125
So, conventional metaphors are very common expressions.

00:22.145 --> 00:24.285
For example, her Spanish is rusty.

00:24.945 --> 00:26.285
Um, and they help us

00:26.285 --> 00:30.005
because they help us, conceptualize something abstract,

00:30.005 --> 00:32.405
difficult to understand in more concrete terms.

00:32.865 --> 00:34.845
So if I say she's a bright student,

00:35.585 --> 00:36.925
or she's a sweet girl,

00:37.505 --> 00:40.765
I'm conceptualizing something abstract, for example,

00:40.845 --> 00:44.565
intelligence with something concrete that we can, see,

00:44.585 --> 00:46.405
you know, bright light is intelligence,

00:46.785 --> 00:47.925
or she's a sweet girl.

00:48.105 --> 00:50.725
I'm conceptualizing kindness, which is an abstract concept

00:51.235 --> 00:53.285
with something we can experience with our taste,

00:53.285 --> 00:55.605
which is sweet taste in our brain.

00:55.745 --> 01:00.365
We, we represent language, with sounds, with,

01:00.585 --> 01:03.245
you know, spoken word and things like that.

01:03.625 --> 01:05.965
But then these are all very abstract symbols.

01:06.185 --> 01:09.285
So if we can have also some sensory monitoring information

01:09.635 --> 01:10.645
that is activated,

01:10.955 --> 01:14.085
then this helps us have more concrete representations.

01:14.585 --> 01:17.485
In fact, concrete concepts that we can touch

01:17.505 --> 01:18.765
and see are easier

01:18.865 --> 01:21.565
to understand the more abstract concepts such as thought.

01:21.825 --> 01:24.325
So metaphoric is a term that I use in my,

01:24.345 --> 01:28.045
in this specific study, and it's a, a more subtle measure.

01:28.105 --> 01:31.245
So instead of looking at metaphors versus literal,

01:31.565 --> 01:36.125
sentences, we look at different degrees, to which,

01:36.545 --> 01:38.605
different degrees in which a sentence

01:38.605 --> 01:39.965
is considered metaphorical.

01:40.345 --> 01:44.045
So if I say the sudden change was a shock for her,

01:44.155 --> 01:45.525
this is a literal sentence.

01:46.185 --> 01:48.565
If I say she left everything behind

01:48.785 --> 01:53.045
and went away, it can be interpreted differently.

01:53.145 --> 01:55.805
But, she, we often mean, you know, we,

01:55.865 --> 01:59.885
we mean she left her her life behind and went away.

02:00.065 --> 02:01.885
So that's, a kind of metaphor,

02:02.065 --> 02:05.125
but Nikki speakers don't even realize that everything

02:05.125 --> 02:06.205
behind is a metaphor.

02:06.395 --> 02:08.685
Okay? So it's really, really, yeah.

02:08.705 --> 02:10.885
And then I can say her Spanish is rusty,

02:11.135 --> 02:12.885
where an it speaker will say,

02:12.885 --> 02:14.325
that's definitely a metaphor,

02:14.345 --> 02:15.725
but it's very, very, very common.

02:16.025 --> 02:17.045
So, you know what I mean.

02:17.625 --> 02:21.005
And then we have other common metaphors that are,

02:21.035 --> 02:22.325
less often used.

02:22.345 --> 02:25.245
For example, the school reform was on shaky ground,

02:25.785 --> 02:27.285
so you still understand what I mean,

02:27.345 --> 02:28.885
but it's less commonly used.

02:29.105 --> 02:31.925
And so we have different degrees from very, very literal

02:32.745 --> 02:35.645
to dead metaphors, to conventional metaphors

02:35.645 --> 02:37.605
that are often used or less often used.

02:37.825 --> 02:40.645
And this is a, a more subtle measure that we can,

02:41.095 --> 02:43.085
manipulate to look at what happens in the brain.

02:43.465 --> 02:46.325
We know from Aristotle, that,

02:46.735 --> 02:49.125
figurative language such as metaphors,

02:49.155 --> 02:50.605
carries a rhetorical advantage.

02:50.835 --> 02:51.925
Okay? So we know this

02:52.585 --> 02:56.565
and there's, pioneering behavioral research that shows

02:56.595 --> 02:58.365
that yes, when we talk about

02:58.765 --> 03:02.085
A personal, autobiographical events, for example,

03:02.405 --> 03:05.925
personal events, we use more metaphors if we talk about,

03:06.075 --> 03:08.285
what ha how we felt during that event.

03:08.825 --> 03:11.645
So, you know, imagine a, a traumatic memory

03:12.065 --> 03:13.445
of childhood or something like that.

03:13.705 --> 03:16.685
We use more metaphors when we, talk about how we felt

03:16.825 --> 03:19.685
during that event compared to when we described

03:19.685 --> 03:20.765
what happened in the event.

03:21.385 --> 03:23.285
So, and this is just one example.

03:23.665 --> 03:25.685
So a lot of literature show that there is,

03:25.825 --> 03:27.005
rhetorical advantage.

03:27.145 --> 03:29.125
We use more metaphors, we use more me,

03:29.125 --> 03:31.805
more idioms when we want to convey something,

03:31.835 --> 03:33.485
emotionally, salient.

03:33.755 --> 03:38.005
Okay? But, the, research on,

03:38.865 --> 03:40.405
in neuroscientific research on

03:40.425 --> 03:43.765
how we process metaphors has not taken into account this,

03:43.905 --> 03:46.205
rhetoric rhetorical advantage.

03:46.835 --> 03:50.285
They have looked at, you know, which brain networks,

03:50.565 --> 03:52.245
language network, attention network,

03:52.475 --> 03:55.565
executive control network are activated when we process

03:55.565 --> 03:58.085
figurative language compared to, ra.

03:58.085 --> 03:59.525
So metaphor compared to ra,

03:59.785 --> 04:01.165
but they have not,

04:01.235 --> 04:03.285
been interested in the effective engagement

04:03.285 --> 04:04.445
or rhetorical advantage.

04:05.305 --> 04:09.365
And, and then in addition to that, so I wanted

04:09.365 --> 04:11.925
to look at the, effective, engagement

04:11.985 --> 04:14.925
or rhetorical advantage, at the neural level

04:15.265 --> 04:17.525
to see whether, you know, this happens implicitly,

04:17.585 --> 04:19.685
not just when we ask people to talk about their own things,

04:19.705 --> 04:21.565
but also when they simply,

04:21.575 --> 04:23.525
understand language for comprehension.

04:23.555 --> 04:25.725
They read, they read, stories.

04:25.985 --> 04:27.685
And then in particular, I'm interested in

04:27.685 --> 04:28.725
second language speakers.

04:29.105 --> 04:30.605
We know that second language speakers,

04:30.635 --> 04:33.925
even if highly proficient in English, in, in the native,

04:34.105 --> 04:38.085
in the second language, they struggle with,

04:38.085 --> 04:39.205
figurative expressions.

04:39.745 --> 04:40.925
Uh, so we know this

04:40.945 --> 04:42.365
and we also know that they tend

04:42.365 --> 04:45.125
to be more emotionally distant from the second language.

04:45.385 --> 04:47.165
And so I wanted to investigate, you know,

04:47.465 --> 04:49.765
do they process, metaphors,

04:49.765 --> 04:51.445
conventional metaphors that they know?

04:51.585 --> 04:53.885
Do they process them similarly to native speakers?

04:54.225 --> 04:56.965
And do they get more effectively engaged or not?

04:57.305 --> 05:00.005
We asked participants to simply read for comprehension.

05:00.255 --> 05:02.405
There was no task. We were not interested

05:02.545 --> 05:04.125
in their reading times.

05:04.305 --> 05:05.685
We know that people,

05:05.715 --> 05:07.965
process metaphorical conventional metaphors

05:07.965 --> 05:10.805
and literacy senses at the, at the same speed

05:10.805 --> 05:12.045
because they're easy to process.

05:12.625 --> 05:14.245
We were interested in the brain network.

05:14.465 --> 05:17.125
So even documentary mepa are very easy to understand,

05:17.215 --> 05:20.605
there is evidence for more active activation in the,

05:20.625 --> 05:22.685
in the brain, in the language network

05:23.145 --> 05:24.485
and the executive control network.

05:25.065 --> 05:27.925
So we simply asked them to read for comprehension.

05:28.425 --> 05:30.325
We didn't tell them that it was about

05:30.605 --> 05:31.765
metaphors and re synthesis.

05:31.765 --> 05:35.805
We wanted, them to implicitly process things,

05:35.805 --> 05:37.645
differently depending on meta,

05:37.755 --> 05:40.685
whether they are metaphorically, expressed or not.

05:41.345 --> 05:43.885
Um, and then every now

05:43.885 --> 05:46.205
and then we had a comprehension question just to make sure

05:46.205 --> 05:47.925
that, you know, they were still, you know,

05:47.925 --> 05:48.925
engaged in the task.

05:49.785 --> 05:52.205
And, and we,

05:52.265 --> 05:54.285
so we presented the conventional metaphor,

05:54.325 --> 05:56.605
a literal sentence without telling them it's about

05:57.085 --> 05:58.085
Metaphors. And

05:58.085 --> 06:02.205
then on purpose, we, we made our,

06:02.765 --> 06:05.045
sentences very low in emotive content

06:05.115 --> 06:08.365
because if there is an effective advantage, we want it

06:08.365 --> 06:10.485
to be, due to the use

06:10.505 --> 06:13.205
of the metaphorical formulation compared to the literal

06:13.545 --> 06:15.845
and not to the fact that the sentences

06:15.845 --> 06:16.965
are a monkey themselves.

06:17.255 --> 06:20.525
First of all, we found that, I mean in line, in line

06:20.525 --> 06:21.885
with the literature, what we knew

06:21.885 --> 06:25.845
before, second language speakers, activate,

06:26.105 --> 06:28.525
the extended language network more

06:28.765 --> 06:29.805
strongly than native speakers.

06:30.065 --> 06:33.045
So they, they, they use the same language language network

06:33.225 --> 06:36.205
as native speakers, but they activated it more strongly

06:36.305 --> 06:39.485
and more widely because they, for them processing,

06:39.485 --> 06:41.285
the second language is more demanding.

06:41.475 --> 06:42.485
Okay? Um,

06:42.625 --> 06:47.005
and so, yeah, so we found this in addition to this,

06:47.195 --> 06:49.805
secondary speakers also activate the switching network.

06:50.025 --> 06:52.845
The switching network is the network that, allows them

06:52.865 --> 06:55.125
to switch between L one and L two.

06:55.625 --> 06:57.925
We know that, L two speakers,

06:57.975 --> 06:59.805
experience interference from their native

07:00.205 --> 07:01.325
language at all times.

07:01.985 --> 07:04.725
Um, and so even if they're just, simply asked

07:04.785 --> 07:07.565
to do everything in L two with no interference, no,

07:07.785 --> 07:09.685
no switching, so we don't ask them to switch

07:09.685 --> 07:12.045
between languages, they just focus on German.

07:12.785 --> 07:16.165
We do find, interference in the brain

07:16.165 --> 07:18.005
because we do find stronger activation

07:18.065 --> 07:20.925
of the switching network for L two speakers than,

07:21.065 --> 07:22.165
native speakers.

07:22.355 --> 07:24.605
This is in line with the literature and we're, we're happy.

07:25.145 --> 07:26.365
Uh, but the most important

07:26.545 --> 07:29.085
and interesting aspect for us was meta felicity.

07:29.465 --> 07:34.205
So if we go from very literal to, con dead metaphors,

07:34.205 --> 07:38.485
conventional metaphors more often used, less often used,

07:38.485 --> 07:41.325
used what happens in the brain for native speakers.

07:41.325 --> 07:43.805
We confirmed our previous results, so we were one

07:43.805 --> 07:47.445
of the few people to find that, conventional,

07:47.685 --> 07:49.125
metaphors engage,

07:49.195 --> 07:51.205
readers at the emotional neural level

07:51.235 --> 07:52.485
more strongly than natives.

07:52.625 --> 07:54.445
So is is one of our original findings.

07:54.745 --> 07:58.005
We confirm this finding, in native speakers

07:58.235 --> 08:00.285
with sentences that are relatively boring

08:00.305 --> 08:01.805
or relatively unemotional.

08:02.105 --> 08:05.405
So we can confirm that this, you know, the,

08:06.315 --> 08:10.045
conveying, the same message in a figurative way compared

08:10.105 --> 08:14.445
to, re brain language does engage native speakers,

08:14.545 --> 08:16.365
at the emotional level more strongly.

08:16.465 --> 08:19.365
So that's great. However, in the case of,

08:19.525 --> 08:22.605
L two speakers, we didn't find two things.

08:23.345 --> 08:26.685
So first of all, they don't seem to differentiate much

08:26.715 --> 08:28.765
between the different levels of multiplicity.

08:29.065 --> 08:30.965
So the native speakers were all familiar

08:30.965 --> 08:31.965
with these metaphors.

08:31.965 --> 08:34.805
If they were not familiar with them, we excluded those,

08:34.825 --> 08:36.565
few metaphors from the analysis.

08:36.905 --> 08:39.045
So they, they knew the meaning, the correct meaning

08:39.045 --> 08:42.165
of the metaphors, and yet they treated literal

08:42.505 --> 08:44.685
and metaphorical senses very similarly.

08:44.745 --> 08:46.565
So we don't, we find very little

08:47.365 --> 08:49.445
stronger activation, in the brain.

08:49.625 --> 08:53.125
Um, in response to increased metaphor, we found,

08:53.225 --> 08:54.965
the coded nucleus, which,

08:55.265 --> 08:58.125
Um, you know, allows, us to switch in

08:58.125 --> 08:59.565
between different representations.

08:59.865 --> 09:01.765
It has been found in native speakers as well.

09:01.865 --> 09:04.245
So it restricts the possible meanings.

09:04.245 --> 09:05.885
You know, there's different possible meanings

09:06.065 --> 09:08.085
and it restricts them, into one.

09:08.545 --> 09:10.485
Um, and that's the only finding.

09:10.665 --> 09:12.085
Uh, there are only cluster

09:12.145 --> 09:13.845
of activation we found in native speakers.

09:13.845 --> 09:16.045
So there's, sorry, in second language speakers.

09:16.045 --> 09:17.325
So there's not much differentiation

09:17.435 --> 09:19.405
between different levels of meta university.

09:19.715 --> 09:23.205
They seem to, you know, engage more,

09:23.525 --> 09:26.005
language network, engage more executive control functions,

09:27.225 --> 09:29.205
no matter whether it's al sentences

09:29.205 --> 09:30.485
or metaphorical sentences.

09:31.065 --> 09:34.365
And then in terms of, effective engagement,

09:34.715 --> 09:37.325
they don't show the same degree of effective engagement

09:37.385 --> 09:38.445
as native speakers.

09:38.985 --> 09:41.525
Um, I mean, I could go into more details.

09:41.725 --> 09:43.525
I mean, at the neural level, the,

09:43.525 --> 09:45.605
at the whole brain level, they don't show it.

09:45.985 --> 09:47.685
We had a priority hypothesis.

09:47.685 --> 09:49.205
So we did apply,

09:49.325 --> 09:51.565
a small volume correction on the amygdala.

09:51.985 --> 09:55.325
And in that case, we found, a couple of clusters of,

09:55.325 --> 09:56.605
of boxes of activation.

09:56.945 --> 09:58.605
But it's very weak results.

09:58.665 --> 10:00.765
So we cannot say that they get,

10:00.765 --> 10:01.845
more emotionally engaged.

10:02.185 --> 10:05.205
So they work harder, they differentiate less

10:05.205 --> 10:06.365
between metaphorical and literal,

10:06.425 --> 10:08.845
and they don't ensure these effective,

10:09.965 --> 10:12.445
stronger effective engagement for metaphorical,

10:12.715 --> 10:13.925
even though our,

10:14.065 --> 10:16.485
second language speakers were highly proficient in German,

10:17.175 --> 10:19.445
maybe there was still some kind of variability.

10:19.625 --> 10:22.885
So, if we, if in future, if we were testing,

10:23.125 --> 10:24.245
a more homogeneous group

10:24.245 --> 10:25.645
and even more homogeneous group,

10:25.835 --> 10:30.045
then we may find more similarities between, natives

10:30.045 --> 10:31.245
and second language speakers.

10:31.545 --> 10:33.485
The other thing that we didn't consider is the

10:33.485 --> 10:34.605
novelty of metaphors.

10:34.605 --> 10:36.685
So we can use novel metaphors, you know,

10:37.125 --> 10:40.285
Juliette is the Sun, which is not a conventional metaphor.

10:40.465 --> 10:42.205
And see what happens with novel metaphors.

10:42.205 --> 10:44.365
Maybe in that case, both native

10:44.545 --> 10:46.365
and second language speakers get,

10:46.715 --> 10:47.805
more emotionally engaged.

10:48.185 --> 10:51.085
But my main interest for future research is

10:51.085 --> 10:54.965
to look at the time course of, effective engagement.

10:55.345 --> 10:57.565
So with the, FMRI, with neuroimaging,

10:57.585 --> 11:00.485
we can look at the locations in the brain and the networks,

11:00.705 --> 11:02.925
but we have, little information on time

11:02.995 --> 11:06.325
because the time,

11:06.425 --> 11:08.565
the time resolution is about two seconds.

11:09.025 --> 11:11.285
So I would like to see, you know, millisecond

11:11.345 --> 11:13.205
by millisecond, what happens in the brain?

11:13.745 --> 11:15.525
Do people get engaged, you know,

11:15.625 --> 11:17.245
at an early processing level

11:17.305 --> 11:19.365
before they are aware of the full meaning of the,

11:19.365 --> 11:21.045
of the word or sentence?

11:21.425 --> 11:24.645
Do they get emotional engaged at that very, implicit

11:24.785 --> 11:28.085
and automatic level, or do they get more emotional engage

11:28.255 --> 11:31.365
later on after they've retrieved the meaning they've

11:31.365 --> 11:34.725
integrated the meaning, within the wider context.

11:35.425 --> 11:38.805
Um, and so I would like to really, you know, map out,

11:39.265 --> 11:41.165
millisecond by millisecond

11:41.235 --> 11:43.485
what happens in the brain in terms of,

11:43.485 --> 11:44.525
effective engagement.

"Exploring the Neural Processing of Metaphors in Second Language Speakers: Rhetorical Advantage and Emotional Engagement"

00:00:00 - So the aims of the study, are to look at, how metaphors are processed by second language speakers. Do they use the same, neural network that native speakers used? And, do, second language speakers enjoy the same rhetorical advantage, that is found in native speakers? So, conventional metaphors are very common expressions. For example, her Spanish is rusty. and they help us because they help us, conceptualize something abstract, difficult to understand in more concrete terms. So if I say she's a bright student, or she's a sweet girl, I'm conceptualizing something abstract, for example,
00:00:44 - you know, bright light is intelligence, or she's a sweet girl. I'm conceptualizing kindness, which is an abstract concept with something we can experience with our taste, which is sweet taste in our brain. We, we represent language, with sounds, with, you know, spoken word and things like that. But then these are all very abstract symbols. So if we can have also some sensory monitoring information that is activated, then this helps us have more concrete representations. In fact, concrete concepts that we can touch and see are easier to understand the more abstract concepts such as thought.
00:01:24 - in this specific study, and it's a, a more subtle measure. So instead of looking at metaphors versus literal, sentences, we look at different degrees, to which, different degrees in which a sentence is considered metaphorical. So if I say the sudden change was a shock for her, this is a literal sentence. If I say she left everything behind and went away, it can be interpreted differently. But, she, we often mean, you know, we, we mean she left her her life behind and went away. So that's, a kind of metaphor,
00:02:05 - behind is a metaphor. Okay? So it's really, really, yeah. And then I can say her Spanish is rusty, where an it speaker will say, that's definitely a metaphor, but it's very, very, very common. So, you know what I mean. And then we have other common metaphors that are, less often used. For example, the school reform was on shaky ground, so you still understand what I mean, but it's less commonly used. And so we have different degrees from very, very literal to dead metaphors, to conventional metaphors that are often used or less often used. And this is a, a more subtle measure that we can, manipulate to look at what happens in the brain.
00:02:46 - figurative language such as metaphors, carries a rhetorical advantage. Okay? So we know this and there's, pioneering behavioral research that shows that yes, when we talk about A personal, autobiographical events, for example, personal events, we use more metaphors if we talk about, what ha how we felt during that event. So, you know, imagine a, a traumatic memory of childhood or something like that. We use more metaphors when we, talk about how we felt during that event compared to when we described what happened in the event. So, and this is just one example.
00:03:25 - rhetorical advantage. We use more metaphors, we use more me, more idioms when we want to convey something, emotionally, salient. Okay? But, the, research on, in neuroscientific research on how we process metaphors has not taken into account this, rhetoric rhetorical advantage. They have looked at, you know, which brain networks, language network, attention network, executive control network are activated when we process figurative language compared to, ra. So metaphor compared to ra, but they have not, been interested in the effective engagement or rhetorical advantage.

"Neural Engagement and Processing of Metaphors in Second Language Speakers: A Comparative Analysis"

00:04:09 - to look at the, effective, engagement or rhetorical advantage, at the neural level to see whether, you know, this happens implicitly, not just when we ask people to talk about their own things, but also when they simply, understand language for comprehension. They read, they read, stories. And then in particular, I'm interested in second language speakers. We know that second language speakers, even if highly proficient in English, in, in the native, in the second language, they struggle with, figurative expressions. so we know this and we also know that they tend to be more emotionally distant from the second language.
00:04:47 - do they process, metaphors, conventional metaphors that they know? Do they process them similarly to native speakers? And do they get more effectively engaged or not? We asked participants to simply read for comprehension. There was no task. We were not interested in their reading times. We know that people, process metaphorical conventional metaphors and literacy senses at the, at the same speed because they're easy to process. We were interested in the brain network. So even documentary mepa are very easy to understand, there is evidence for more active activation in the, in the brain, in the language network and the executive control network. So we simply asked them to read for comprehension.
00:05:30 - metaphors and re synthesis. We wanted, them to implicitly process things, differently depending on meta, whether they are metaphorically, expressed or not. and then every now and then we had a comprehension question just to make sure that, you know, they were still, you know, engaged in the task. And, and we, so we presented the conventional metaphor, a literal sentence without telling them it's about Metaphors. And then on purpose, we, we made our, sentences very low in emotive content because if there is an effective advantage, we want it to be, due to the use
00:06:13 - and not to the fact that the sentences are a monkey themselves. First of all, we found that, I mean in line, in line with the literature, what we knew before, second language speakers, activate, the extended language network more strongly than native speakers. So they, they, they use the same language language network as native speakers, but they activated it more strongly and more widely because they, for them processing, the second language is more demanding. Okay? and so, yeah, so we found this in addition to this, secondary speakers also activate the switching network. The switching network is the network that, allows them
00:06:55 - We know that, L two speakers, experience interference from their native language at all times. and so even if they're just, simply asked to do everything in L two with no interference, no, no switching, so we don't ask them to switch between languages, they just focus on German. We do find, interference in the brain because we do find stronger activation of the switching network for L two speakers than, native speakers. This is in line with the literature and we're, we're happy. but the most important and interesting aspect for us was meta felicity. So if we go from very literal to, con dead metaphors,
00:07:38 - used what happens in the brain for native speakers. We confirmed our previous results, so we were one of the few people to find that, conventional, metaphors engage, readers at the emotional neural level more strongly than natives. So is is one of our original findings. We confirm this finding, in native speakers with sentences that are relatively boring or relatively unemotional. So we can confirm that this, you know, the, conveying, the same message in a figurative way compared to, re brain language does engage native speakers,

"Exploring Metaphor Processing and Emotional Engagement in Second Language Speakers"

00:08:16 - So that's great. However, in the case of, L two speakers, we didn't find two things. So first of all, they don't seem to differentiate much between the different levels of multiplicity. So the native speakers were all familiar with these metaphors. If they were not familiar with them, we excluded those, few metaphors from the analysis. So they, they knew the meaning, the correct meaning of the metaphors, and yet they treated literal and metaphorical senses very similarly. So we don't, we find very little stronger activation, in the brain. in response to increased metaphor, we found, the coded nucleus, which,
00:08:58 - between different representations. It has been found in native speakers as well. So it restricts the possible meanings. You know, there's different possible meanings and it restricts them, into one. and that's the only finding. there are only cluster of activation we found in native speakers. So there's, sorry, in second language speakers. So there's not much differentiation between different levels of meta university. They seem to, you know, engage more, language network, engage more executive control functions, no matter whether it's al sentences or metaphorical sentences. And then in terms of, effective engagement, they don't show the same degree of effective engagement
00:09:38 - I mean, I could go into more details. I mean, at the neural level, the, at the whole brain level, they don't show it. We had a priority hypothesis. So we did apply, a small volume correction on the amygdala. And in that case, we found, a couple of clusters of, of boxes of activation. But it's very weak results. So we cannot say that they get, more emotionally engaged. So they work harder, they differentiate less between metaphorical and literal, and they don't ensure these effective, stronger effective engagement for metaphorical, even though our, second language speakers were highly proficient in German, maybe there was still some kind of variability.
00:10:23 - a more homogeneous group and even more homogeneous group, then we may find more similarities between, natives and second language speakers. The other thing that we didn't consider is the novelty of metaphors. So we can use novel metaphors, you know, Juliette is the Sun, which is not a conventional metaphor. And see what happens with novel metaphors. Maybe in that case, both native and second language speakers get, more emotionally engaged. But my main interest for future research is to look at the time course of, effective engagement. So with the, FMRI, with neuroimaging, we can look at the locations in the brain and the networks,
00:11:02 - because the time, the time resolution is about two seconds. So I would like to see, you know, millisecond by millisecond, what happens in the brain? Do people get engaged, you know, at an early processing level before they are aware of the full meaning of the, of the word or sentence? Do they get emotional engaged at that very, implicit and automatic level, or do they get more emotional engage later on after they've retrieved the meaning they've integrated the meaning, within the wider context. and so I would like to really, you know, map out, millisecond by millisecond
00:11:43 - effective engagement.

Faculti AI can make mistakes

Research

Policy

Analysis

Data

Originals

Explainers

Podcasts

Faculti

New on Faculti

Idea Explorer

Definition

News Context

Critical Questions and Answers

Research Panel

Latest Papers

Summary

Metaphorical language processing and amygdala activation in non-native and native speakers

Media Literacy Toolkit

Critical Questions to Consider ▼

Bias and Perspective Awareness ▼

Further Reading ▼