Abstract
This article discusses the role of inhibition as a component of executive functions in metaphorical embodiment of concepts and explains some incongruent evidence for metaphorical embodiment. Some past works have explained the incongruent evidence for metaphorical embodiment of concepts on the basis of conventionality/novelty of metaphors. Based on theories of embodiment, when a word that refers to an object is used in its literal sense, all sensorimotor networks that are involved in perceiving the object are activated, and sensorimotor features of the object are embodied. However, when the same word is used in a metaphorical sense as the base of a metaphor, only a single salient semantic feature that defines the metaphorical meaning of the word is embodied. The other semantic features, which are metaphorically irrelevant, are inhibited during metaphor comprehension. The activation/embodiment of the salient metaphorically-relevant feature and the inhibition of metaphorically-irrelevant features are dependent on base-target relationship, contextual information, and conventionality/novelty of metaphorical expression. Therefore, meaning of a single term can be metaphorically embodied in a variety of ways in different situations and in different metaphorical expressions. It is suggested that this can be one reason for non-congruency of evidence for metaphorical embodiment of concepts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no dataset was generated or analyzed.
References
Alessandroni, N. (2017). Development of metaphorical thought before language: The pragmatic construction of metaphors in action. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 51(4), 618–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-016-9373-3.
Aziz-Zadeh, L., & Damasio, A. (2008). Embodied semantics for actions: Findings from functional brain imaging. Journal of Physiology - Paris, 102(1–3), 35–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.012.
Aziz-Zadeh, L., Wilson, S. M., Rizzolatti, G., & Iacoboni, M. (2006). Congruent embodied representations for visually presented actions and linguistic phrases describing actions. Current Biology, 16(18), 1818–1823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.07.060.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1994). Developments in the concept of working memory. Neuropsychology, 8(4), 485–493. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.8.4.485.
Banaruee, H., Khoshsima, H., Khatin-Zadeh, O., & Askari, A. (2017). Suppression of semantic features in metaphor comprehension. Cogent Psychology, 4(1), 1409323. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2017.1409323.
Boulenger, V., Hauk, O., & Pulvermüller, F. (2009). Grasping ideas with the motor system: Semantic somatotopy in idiom comprehension. Cerebral Cortex, 19(8), 1905–1914. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhn217.
Boulenger, V., Shtyrov, Y., & Pulvermüller, F. (2012). When do you grasp the idea? MEG evidence for instantaneous idiom understanding. Neuroimage, 59, 3502–3513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.011.
Burgess, P. W., & Simons, J. S. (2005). Theories of frontal lobe executive function: Clinical applications. In P. W. Halligan, & D. T. Wade (Eds.), Effectiveness of Rehabilitation for Cognitive deficits (pp. 211–231). Oxford University Press.
Cacciari, C., Bolognini, N., Senna, I., Pellicciari, M. C., Miniussi, C., & Papagno, C. (2011). Literal, fictive and metaphorical motion sentences preserve the motion component of the verb: A TMS study. Brain and Language, 119(3), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2011.05.004.
Cragg, L., & Gilmore, C. (2014). Skills underlying mathematics: The role of executive function in the development of mathematics proficiency. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 3(2), 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2013.12.001.
Damerall, A. W., & Kellogg, R. T. (2016). Familiarity and aptness in metaphor comprehension. American Journal of Psychology, 129(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.129.
Davidson, M. C., Amso, D., Anderson, L. C., & Diamond, A. (2006). Development of cognitive control and executive functions from 4 to 13 years: Evidence from manipulations of memory, inhibition, and task switching. Neuropsychologia, 44(11), 2037–2078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.02.006.
Desai, R. H. (2022). Are metaphors embodied? The neural evidence. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 86(8), 2417–2433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01604-4.
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750.
Espy, K. A. (2004). Using developmental, cognitive, and neuroscience approaches to understand executive control in young children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 26(1), 379–384. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326942dn2601_1.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2008). Rethinking metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (pp. 53–66). Cambridge University Press.
Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004). The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(1), 101–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.101.
Gallese, G., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3–4), 455–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290442000310.
Garon, N., Bryson, S. E., & Smith, I. M. (2008). Executive function in preschoolers: A review using an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134(1), 31–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.31.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3.
Gernsbacher, M., A., & Robertson, R. R. W. (1995). Reading skill and suppression revisited. Psychological Science, 6(3), 165–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. W. (2012). Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W., & Gerrig, R. J. (1989). How context makes metaphor comprehension seem ‘special’. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 4(3), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0403_3.
Gibbs, R. W., & Matlock, T. (2008). Metaphor, imagination, and Simulation. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (pp. 161–176). Cambridge University Press.
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183.
Giora, R. (1999). On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 919–929. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00100-3.
Giora, R. (2002). On our mind: Salience, Context, and figurative Language. Oxford University Press.
Glucksberg, S. (1989). Metaphors in conversation: How are they understood? Why are they used? Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 4(3), 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0403_2.
Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.3.
Glucksberg, S., Newsome, M. R., & Goldvarg, Y. (2001). Inhibition of the literal: Filtering metaphor-irrelevant information during metaphor comprehension. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3–4), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1603&4_8.
Holyoak, K. J., & Stamenković, D. (2018). Metaphor comprehension: A critical review of theories and evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 144(6), 641–671. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000145.
Keysar, B. (1994). Discourse context effects: Metaphorical and literal interpretations. Discourse Processes, 18(3), 247–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539409544895.
Khatin-Zadeh, O. (2023). Embodied metaphor processing: A study of the priming impact of congruent and opposite gestural representations of metaphor schema on metaphor comprehension. Metaphor and Symbol, 38(1), 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2022.2122830.
Khatin-Zadeh, O., & Hu, J. (2024). The role of mathematical semiotic signs in enhancing working memory and inhibition as the components of executive functions. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 58(1), 138–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-023-09776-x.
Khatin-Zadeh, O., Eskandari, Z., & Marmolejo-Ramos, F. (2022). Gestures enhance executive functions for the understating of mathematical concepts. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-022-09694-4.
Khatin-Zadeh, O., Farina, M., Yazdani-Fazlabadi, B., Hu, J., Trumpower, D., Marmolejo-Ramos, F., & Farsani, D. (2023). The roles of gestural and symbolic schematizations in inhibition as a component of executive functions. Integrative Psychological Behavioral and Science, 57(3), 950–959. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-022-09742-z.
Lai, V. T., Howerton, O., & Desai, R. H. (2019). Concrete processing of action metaphors: Evidence from ERP. Brain Research, 1714, 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2019.03.005.
Lakoff, G. (2012). Explaining embodied cognition results. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(4), 773–785. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01222.x.
Lakoff, G. (2014). Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: Metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 16, 8:958. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00958.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. Basic Books.
Lehto, J. E., Juujärvi, P., Kooistra, L., & Pulkkinen, L. (2003). Dimensions of executive functioning: Evidence from children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 59–80. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151003321164627.
Luria, A. R. (1974). The Working Brain: An introduction to Neuropsychology. Basic Books.
Luria, A. R. (1980). Higher cortical functions in Man (2nd ed.). Basic Books.
Mashal, N., Faust, M., Hendler, T., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2007). An fMRI investigation of the neural correlates underlying the processing of novel metaphoric expressions. Brain and Language, 100(2), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2005.10.005.
Mashal, N., Faust, M., Hendler, T., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2009). An fMRI study of processing novel metaphoric sentences. Laterality, 14(1), 30–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500802049433.
Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24(1), 167–202. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex frontal lobe tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734.
Moreno-Núñez, A., Rodríguez, C., & Del Olmo, M. J. (2015). The rhythmic, sonorous and melodic components of adult-child-object interactions between 2 and 6 months old. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49(4), 737–756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-015-9298-2.
Nigg, J. T. (2000). On inhibition/disinhibition in developmental psychopathology: Views from cognitive and personality psychology and a working inhibition taxonomy. Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 220–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.220.
Ortony, A. (1979). Metaphor, language, and thought. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 1–19). Cambridge University Press.
Pulvermüller, F. (2013). How neurons make meaning: Brain mechanisms for embodied and abstract-symbolic semantics. Trends in Cognitive Science, 17(9), 458–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.004.
Reilly, M., Howerton, O., & Desai, R. H. (2019). Time-Course of motor involvement in literal and metaphoric action sentence processing: A TMS study. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 371. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00371.
Rodríguez, C., & Moreno-Llanos, I. (2020). A pragmatic turn in the study of early executive functions by object use and gestures. A case study from 8 to 17 months of age at a nursery school. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 57(2), 607–654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09578-5.
Rodríguez, C., & Palacios, P. (2007). Do private gestures have a self-regulatory function? A case study. Infant Behavior & Development, 30(2), 180–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2007.02.010.
Rodríguez, C., Estrada, L., Moreno-Llanos, I., & de los Reyes, J. L. (2017). Executive functions and educational actions in an infant school: Private uses and gestures at the end of the first year. Funciones ejecutivas y acción educativa en la escuela infantil: Usos Y gestos privados al final Del primer año. Estudios De Psicología, 38(2), 385–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/02109395.2017.1305061.
Romero Lauro, L. J., Mattavelli, G., Papagno, C., & Tettamanti, M. (2013). She runs, the road runs, my mind runs, bad blood runs between us: Literal and figurative motion verbs: An fMRI study. Neuroimage, 83, 361–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.06.050.
Schmidt, G. L., DeBuse, C. J., & Seger, C. A. (2007). Right hemisphere metaphor processing? Characterizing the lateralization of semantic processes. Brain and Language, 100(2), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2005.03.002.
Smith, E. E., & Jonides, J. (1999). Storage and executive processes in the frontal lobes. Science, 283(5408), 1657–1661. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.283.5408.1657.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1977). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes (14th ed.). Havard University.
Wiebe, S. A., Espy, K. A., & Charak, D. (2008). Using confirmatory factor analysis to understand executive control in preschool children: I. latent structure. Developmental Psychology, 44(2), 575–587. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.575.
Wilson, N. L., & Gibbs, R. W. (2007). Real and imagined body movement primes metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31(4), 721–731. https://doi.org/10.1080/15326900701399962.
Funding
This study received no funding.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
This paper was developed by Omid Khatin-Zadeh as the single author of the work.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval
Not applicable.
Consent to Participate
Not applicable.
Consent for Publication
Not applicable.
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Khatin-Zadeh, O. The Role of Inhibition as a Component of Executive Functions in Metaphorical Embodiment. Integr. psych. behav. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-024-09838-8
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-024-09838-8