Search

Internal states, e.g., emotions, cognitive states, or desires, are often verbalized by figurative means, in particular by embodied metaphors involving human senses, such as touch, taste, and smell. The present paper presents a database for German metaphorical expressions conveying internal states with human senses as their source domains. 168 metaphorical expressions from the source domains of vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, and temperature combined with literal equivalents were collected and rated by 643 adults. The agreement between the metaphor and an equivalent literal expression, as well as emotional valence, arousal, and familiarity values were assessed using a 7-point Likert scale. Between the metaphorical expressions and their equivalents, familiarity, but not valence or arousal differed significantly while agreement ratings indicated high similarity in meaning. The novel database offers carefully controlled stimuli that can be used in both empirical metaphor research and research on internal state language. Using part of the stimuli in a sentence completion experiment revealed a significant preference for literal over metaphorical expressions that cannot be attributed to higher familiarity levels., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

The processing of metaphors and idioms has been the subject of neuroscientific research for several decades. However, results are often contradictory, which can be traced back to inconsistent terminology and stimulus control. In this systematic review of research methods, we analyse linguistic aspects of 116 research papers which used EEG, fMRI, PET, MEG, or NIRS to investigate the neural processing of the two figurative subtypes metaphor and idiom. We critically examine the theoretical foundations as well as stimulus control by performing a systematic literature synthesis according to the PRISMA guidelines. We explicitly do not analyse the findings of the studies but instead focus on four primary aspects: definitions of figurative language and its subtypes, linguistic theory behind the studies, control for factors influencing figurative language processing, and the relationship between theoretical and operational definitions. We found both a lack and a broad variety in existing definitions and operationalisation, especially in regard to familiarity and conventionality. We identify severe obstacles in the comparability and validation potential of the results of the papers in our review corpus. We propose the development of a consensus in fundamental terminology and more transparency in the reporting of stimulus design in the research on figurative language processing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]