Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dalla pragmatica alla prospettiva neuropragmatica

  • Chapter
Neuropsicologia della comunicazione

  • 528 Accesses

Abstract

Utilizzando le due metafore cordate da Reddy [1], denominate conduit metaphor e toolmakers paradigm, possiamo introdurre alcune distinzioni circa la natura della comunicazione e delle proprietà pragmatiche che la caratterizzano. Secondo la prima metafora, le espressioni linguistiche utilizzate dai parlanti in interazione sono veicoli all’interno dei quali idee e significati possono essere versati ed estratti, rimanendo immutati nel passaggio; quello che accadrebbe nella comunicazione altro non sarebbe quindi che uno scambio di informazioni tra due persone. Il paradigma della “progettualità”, al contrario, inscena una situazione molto più complessa: gli interlocutori sono individui che vivono in mondi separati; nessuno di loro conosce le caratteristiche del mondo degli altri e ignora se queste siano uguali o dissimili dal proprio. Costoro non hanno una lingua comune, ma — essendo tutti agricoltori — si scambiano progetti su strumenti che possono facilitare la coltivazione dei propri terreni. Ognuno è fiero degli strumenti che inventa e dei progetti che stende in modo da rendere possibile agli altri la realizzazione di tali strumenti. Ciononostante, coloro che progettano si sentono spesso delusi, irritati e spiacevolmente stupiti, dal fatto che i loro progetti sono spesso fraintesi. Al contrario, motivo di gioia sono le poche volte nelle quali i progetti sono accettati senza alcuna modifica, cosi come sono stati pensati.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliografia

  1. Reddy MJ (1979) The conduit metaphor — a case of frame conflict in our language about language. In: Ortony A (ed) Metaphor and thought. Cambridge University Press, London, pp. 284–324

    Google Scholar 

  2. Szabo ZC (2005) Semantics versus pragmatics. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  3. Jaszczolt KM (2002) Semantics and pragmatics. Longman, London

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gibbs R (1999) Intentions in the experience of meaning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  5. Peirce CS (1894) What is a sign? In: Collected papers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass, pp. 1931–1935

    Google Scholar 

  6. De Saussure (1916) Corso di linguistica generale. Laterza, Bari

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jackendoff R (1992) Languages of the mind: essays on mental representation. The MIT Press, Cambridge Mass

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lakoff G (1987) Women, fire and dangerous thing: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago University Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  9. Giannoli GI (2005) La comprensione inferenziale. In: Ferretti F, Gambarara D (eds) Comunicazione e scienza cognitiva. Laterza, Bari, pp. 73–110

    Google Scholar 

  10. Verschueren J (1999) Understanding Pragmatics. Arnold, London

    Google Scholar 

  11. Wittgenstein L (1953) Philosophische Untersuchungen. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  12. Morris CW (1938) Foundations of the theory of signs. In: Neurath O, Carnap R, Morris CW (eds) International encyclopedia of unified science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 77–138

    Google Scholar 

  13. Grice P (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Cole P, Morgan JL (eds) Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts. Academic Press, New York, pp. 41–58

    Google Scholar 

  14. Austin JL (1962) How to do things with words: the William James lectures delivered in Harvard University in 1955. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  15. Searle JR (1969) Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  16. Searle JR (1976) A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5:1–23

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dascal M (1983) Pragmatics and the philosophy of mind 1: thought in language. Pragmatics and beyond. An Interdisciplinary Series of Language Studies 4:1–207

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ferretti F, Gambarara D (2005) Comunicazione e scienza cognitiva. Laterza, Bari

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sperber D, Wilson D (1986) Relevance: communication and cognition. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  20. Levinson S (2000) Presumptive meanings: the theory of generalized conversational implicature. The MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Récanati F (2003) Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  22. Carsten R (2002) Thoughts and utterances: the pragmatics of explicit communication. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sperber D, Noveck I (2004) Experimental pragmatics. Palgrave, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gibbs RW (1999) Speakers’ intuitions and pragmatic theory. Cognition 69:355–359

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Giora R (2003) On our mind: context, salience and figurative language. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gibbs RW (2002) A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. J Pragmatics 34:457–486

    Google Scholar 

  27. Stemmer B (1999) Pragmatics: theoretical and clinical issues. Brain Lang 68:389–391

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Stemmer B, Shönle PW (2000) Neuropragmatics in the 21st century. Brain Lang 71:233–236

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bara BG, Tirassa M (2000) Neuropragmatics: brain and communication. Brain Lang 71:10–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Joanette Y, Brownell HH (1990) Discourse ability and brain damage: theoretical and empirical perspectives. Springer-Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  31. Damico JS (1985) Clinical discourse analysis: a functional approach. In: Simon CS (ed) Communication skills and classroom success. Taylor and Francis, Basingstoke, pp. 165–204

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hird K, Kirsner K (2003) The effect of right cerebral hemisphere damage on collaborative planning in conversation: an analysis of intentional structure. Clin Linguist Phonet 17:309–325

    Google Scholar 

  33. Joanette Y, Ansaldo AY (1999) Clinical note: acquired pragmatic impairments and aphasia. Brain Lang 68:529–534

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Levelt WJM (1999) Producing spoken language: a blueprint of the speaker. In: Brown CM, Hagoort P (eds) The neurocognition of language. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 83–122

    Google Scholar 

  35. McDonald S (1998) Communication and language disturbances following traumatic brain injury. In: Stemmer B, Whitaker HA (eds) Handbook of neurolinguistics. Academic Press, San Diego London, pp. 485–494

    Google Scholar 

  36. Martin I, McDonald S (2003) Weak coherence, no theory of mind, or executive dysfunction? Solving the puzzle of pragmatic language disorders. Brain Lang 85:451–466

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Brownell H, Stingfellow A (1999) Making requests: illustration of how right hemisphere brain damage can affect discourse production. Brain Lang 68:422–465

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kasher A, Batori G, Soroker N et al (1999) Effects of right-and left-hemisphere damage on understanding conversational implicatures. Brain Lang 68:566–590

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Giora R, Zaidel E, Soroker N et al (2000) Differential effects of right-and left-hemisphere damage on understanding sarcasm and metaphor. Metaphor Symbol 15:63–83

    Google Scholar 

  40. Noveck IA, Posada A (2003) Characterizing the time course of an implicature: an evoked potentials study. Brain Lang 85:203–210

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Buchanan TW, Lutz K, Mirzazade S et al (2000) Recognition of emotional prosody and verbal components of spoken language: an fMRI study. Cognitive Brain Res 9:227–238

    Google Scholar 

  42. Lee SS, Dapretto M (2006) Metaphorical vs. literal word meanings: fMRI evidence against a selective role of the right hemisphere. Neuroimage 15:536–544

    Google Scholar 

  43. Coulson S (2004) Electrophisiology and pragmatic language comprehension. In: Sperber D, Noveck IA (eds) Experimental pragmatics. Palgrave, Dan Diego, pp. 187–206

    Google Scholar 

  44. Keller J, Recht T (1998) Towards a modular description of the deficits in spontaneous speech in dementia. J Pragmatics 29:313–332

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kutas M (2006) One lesson learned: frame language processing — literal and figurative — as a human brain function. Metaphor Symbol 4:285–325

    Google Scholar 

  46. Caplan D (1992) Language: structure, processing and disorders. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  47. Bambini V (2003) Pragmatica e cervello: guida e stato dell’arte. Quaderni del laboratorio di linguistica 4:1–29

    Google Scholar 

  48. Van Lanker D (1997) Rags to riches: our increasingly appreciation of cognitive and communicative abilities of human right cerebral hemisphere. Brain Lang 57:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  49. Joanette Y, Goulet P, Hannequin D (1990) Right hemisphere and verbal communication. Springer-Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  50. Davidson RJ, Hughdal K (1995) Brain asymmetry. MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Hellige JB (1993) Hemispheric asymmetry: what’s right and what’s left. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Beeman M, Chiarello C (1998) Right hemisphere language comprehension: perspectives from cognitive neuroscience. Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  53. Cummings L (2007) Pragmatics and adult language disorders: past achievements and future directions. Seminars in Speech e Language 28:96–110

    Google Scholar 

  54. Feyereisen P, Berrewaerts J, Hupet M (2007) Pragmatic skills in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease: an analysis by means of a referential communication task. Int J Lan Comm Dis 42:1–17

    Google Scholar 

  55. Martin I, McDonald S (2006) That can’t be right! What causes pragmatic language impairment following right hemisphere damage? Brain Impairment 7:201–211

    Google Scholar 

  56. Uchiyama H, Seki A, Kageyama H et al (2006) Neural substrates of sarcasm: a functional magnetic-resonance imaging study. Brain Res 1124:100–110

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Commodari E (2002) Disturbi del linguaggio: i deficit della comunicazione orale: strumenti di valutazione e riabilitazione. Città Aperta, Enna

    Google Scholar 

  58. Gardner H, Brownell HH (1986) Right hemisphere communication battery. Psychology Service, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  59. Démonet JF, Thierry G, Cardebat D (2005) Renewal of the neurophysiology of language: functional neuroimaging. Physiol Rev 85:49–95

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Zaidel E (1998) Language in the right hemisphere following callosal disconnection. In: Stemmer B, Whitaker HA (eds) Handbook of Neurolinguistics. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 369–383

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kutas M, Hillyard S (1984) Brain potential during reading reflect word expectancies and semantic association. Nature 307:161–163

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Coulson S, King JW, Kutas M (1998) Expect the unexpected: event-related brain responses to morphosyntactic violations. Lang Cognitive Proc 13:21–58

    Google Scholar 

  63. Balconi M, Pozzoli U (2004) N400 and P600 or the role of the ERP correlates in sentence comprehension: some applications to the Italian language. J Gen Psychol 131:268–303

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Balconi M, Pozzoli U (2005) Comprehending semantic and grammatical violations in Italian. N400 and P600 comparison with visual and auditory stimuli. J of Psycholinguist Res 34:71–98

    Google Scholar 

  65. Kuperberg GR, Holcomb PJ, Sitnikova T et al (2003) Distinct patterns of neural modulation during the processing of conceptual and syntactic anomalies. J Cognitive Neurosci 15:272–293

    Google Scholar 

  66. Nieuwland MS, Van Berkum JJA (2006) When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse. J Cognitive Neurosci 18:1098–1111

    Google Scholar 

  67. Hagoort P, Halal L, Bastiaansen M et al (2004) Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science 304:438–441

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Coulson S, van Petten C (2002) Conceptual integration and metaphor: an event-related potential study. Mem Cognit 30:958–968

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Pynte J, Besson M, Robichon FH et al (1996) The time-course of metaphor comprehension: an event-related potential study. Brain Lang 55:293–316

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Tartter VC, Gomes H, Dubrovsky B et al (2002) Novel metaphors appear anomalous at least momentarily: evidence from N400. Brain Lang 80:488–509

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Balconi M, Tutino S (2006) A fighter is a lion. Neuropsychological and cognitive processes in decoding a metaphor. An analysis through ERPs. J Int Neuropsych Soc 12,Supplement 2:88

    Google Scholar 

  72. Balconi M, Tutino S (2007) An ERP analysis of iconic language and iconic thinking. The case of metaphor. J Int Neuropsych Soc 13,Supplement 2:74

    Google Scholar 

  73. Arzouan Y, Goldstein A, Faust M (2007) Dynamics of hemispheric activity during metaphor comprehension: electrophysiological measures. Neuroimage 15:222–231

    Google Scholar 

  74. Galina I, Christine P, Laurent JP et al (2005) ERPs of metaphoric, literal, and incongruous semantic processing in schizophrenia. Psychophisiology 42:380–390

    Google Scholar 

  75. Ferretti TR, Schwint CA, Katz AN (2007) Electrophysiological and behavioral measures of the influence of literal and figurative contextual constraints on proverb comprehension. Bain Lang 101:38–49

    Google Scholar 

  76. Kumon-Nakamura S, Glucksberg S, Brown M (1995) How about another piece of pie: the allusional pretense theory of discourse irony. J Experimental Psychol Gen 124:3–21

    Google Scholar 

  77. Attardo S (2000) Irony as relevant inappropriateness. J Pragmatics 32:793–826

    Google Scholar 

  78. Gibbs RW (1994) The poetics of mind: figurative thought and figurative language. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  79. Kihara Y (2005) The mental space structure of verbal irony. Cognitive Linguist 16:513–530

    Google Scholar 

  80. Ritchie D (2005) Frame-shifting in humour and irony. Metaphor Symbol 20:275–294

    Google Scholar 

  81. Colston HL (2002) Contrast and assimilation in verbal irony. J Pragmatics 34:111–142

    Google Scholar 

  82. Anolli L, Ciceri R, Infantino MG (2002) Behind dark glasses: irony as a strategy for indirect communication. Gen Soc Gen Psych 128:76–95

    Google Scholar 

  83. Kreuz RJ (2000) The production and processing of verbal irony. Metaphor Symbol 15:99–107

    Google Scholar 

  84. Colston HL, O’Brien J (2000) Contrast and pragmatics in figurative language: anything understatement can do, irony can do better. J Pragmatics 32:1557–1583

    Google Scholar 

  85. Utsumi A (2000) Verbal irony as implicit display of ironic environment: distinguishing ironic utterances from nonirony. J Pragmatics 32:1777–1806

    Google Scholar 

  86. Giora R, Fein O, Schwartz T (1998) Irony: graded salience and indirect negation. Metaphor Symbol 13:83–101

    Google Scholar 

  87. Giora R, Fein O (1999) Irony: context and salience. Metaphor and Symbol 14:241–257

    Google Scholar 

  88. Dews S, Winner E (1999) Obligatory processing of literal and nonliteral meanings in verbal irony. J Pragmatics 31:1579–1599

    Google Scholar 

  89. Gibbs RW (1999) Interpreting what speakers say and implicate. Brain Lang 68:466–485

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Ivanko SL, Pexman PM (2003) Context incongruity and irony processing. Discourse Process 35:241–279

    Google Scholar 

  91. Long DL, Graesser AC (1988) Wit and humour in discourse processes. Discourse Process 11:35–60

    Google Scholar 

  92. Shamay-Tsoory SG, Tomer R, Ahron-Peretz J (2005) The neuroanatomical basis of understanding sarcasm and its relationship to social cognition. Neuropsychology 19:288–300

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Colston HL, Katz AN (eds) (2005) Figurative language comprehension: social and cultural influences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  94. Schwoebel J, Dews S, Winner E, et al (2000) Obligatory processing of the literal meaning of ironic utterances: further evidence. Metaphor Symbol 15:47–61

    Google Scholar 

  95. Regel S, Gunter TC, Friederici AD (2006) Processing of ironic and non-ironic sentences examined with ERPs. Proceedings of the 19th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing

    Google Scholar 

  96. Balconi M, Amenta S (2007) Neuropsychological processes in verbal irony comprehension: an event-related potentials (ERPs) investigation. J Int Neuropsych Soc 13,Supplement 2:77

    Google Scholar 

  97. Colston HL (2000) On necessary conditions for verbal irony comprehension. Pragmatics Cognition 8:277–324

    Google Scholar 

  98. McDonald S (1999) Exploring the process of inference generation in sarcasm: a review of normal and clinical studies. Brain Lang 68:486–506

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. McDonald S (2000) Neuropsychological studies on sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol 15:85–98

    Google Scholar 

  100. Brownell HH, Simpson TL, Bihrle AM et al (1990) Appreciation of metaphoric alternative word meanings by left and right brain-damaged patients. Neuropsychologia 28:375–383

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Winner E, Brownell H, Happe F et al (1998) Distinguishing lies from jokes: theory of mind deficits and discourse interpretation in right hemisphere brain-damaged patients. Brain Lang 62:89–106

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Stuss DT, Gallup GGJr, Alexander MP (2001) The frontal lobes are necessary for theory of mind. Brain 124:279–286

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. McDonald S, Pearce S (1996) Clinical insights into pragmatic theory: frontal lobe deficits and sarcasm. Brain Lang 53:81–104

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Ross ED (2000) Affective prosody and the aprosodias. In: Mesulam MM (ed) Principles of behavioral and cognitive neurology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 316–331

    Google Scholar 

  105. Shammi P, Stuss DT (1999) Humour appreciation: a role of the right frontal lobe. Brain 122:657–666

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Burgess C, Chiarello C (1996) Neurocognitive mechanisms underlying metaphor comprehension and other figurative language. Metaphor Symbol 11:67–84

    Google Scholar 

  107. Bihrle AM, Brownell HH, Powelson JA et al (1986) Comprehension of humorous and non-humorous materials by left and right brain-damaged patients. Brain Cognition 5:399–411

    Google Scholar 

  108. Pell MD (2007) Reduced sensitivity to prosodic attitudes in adults with focal right hemisphere brain damage. Brain Lang 101:64–79

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Walker J, Fongemie K, Daigle T (2001) Prosodic facilitation in the resolution of syntactic ambiguities in subjects with left and right hemisphere damage. Brain Lang 78:169–196

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Baum SR, Dwivedi VD (2003) Sensitivity to prosodie structure in left-and right-hemisphere-damaged individuals. Brain Lang 87:278–289

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Tompkins CA, Mateer CA (1985) Right hemisphere appreciation of prosodie and linguistic indications of implicits attitude. Brain Lang 24:185–203

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Channon S, Pellijeff A, Rule A (2005) Social cognition after head injury: sarcasm and theory of mind. Brain Lang 93:123–134

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Griffin R, Friedman O, Ween J et al (2004) Theory of mind and the right cerebral hemisphere: refining the scope of impairment. Laterality 3:195–225

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Psicologia, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano

    Michela Balconi & Simona Amenta

Authors
  1. Michela Balconi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simona Amenta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Balconi, M., Amenta, S. (2008). Dalla pragmatica alla prospettiva neuropragmatica. In: Neuropsicologia della comunicazione. Springer, Milano. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-0706-2_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation