Redirecting to http://dergipark.org.tr/_fragment?_hash=3Lf6aIUtXPXnXCXMkp3LhhyGUN8KJVeRHNBeEs65LO0&_path=id%3D1545559%26_format%3Dhtml%26_locale%3Den%26_controller%3DApp%255CController%255CSite%255CArticleController%253A%253AesiArticleStats.
Review
BibTex RIS Cite

Pragmatik Dil Araştırmalarında Beyin Uyarımı

Year 2025, Volume: 36 Issue: 1, 83 - 108, 29.06.2025

Hazel Zeynep Kurada

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1545559

Abstract

Pragmatik dil, dilin sosyal etkileşim ortamlarında kullanımını, iletişimsel kuralların anlaşılmasını, imgesel, sezdirim ya da dolaylılık içeren dilin yorumlanmasını ve dilin bağlama uygun şekilde kullanımını kapsamaktadır. Son yıllarda uluslararası alanyazında pragmatik dile yönelik araştırmalarda transkraniyal manyetik uyarım ve transkraniyal doğru akım uyarımı gibi beyin uyarımı tekniklerinin kullanıldığı çalışmaların sayısı giderek artmaktadır. Bu derleme, pragmatik dil işlemleme süreçlerinde özellikle dorsolateral prefrontal korteks, sağ temporo-parietal bağlantı bölgesi ve sol orta frontal girus gibi kritik beyin bölgelerinin işlevlerini öne çıkaran güncel araştırmaları sentezlemektedir. Derlemede bu beyin bölgelerinin, imgesel dilin yorumlanması, dolaylı söz eylemlerinin anlaşılması ve iletişim sırasında karar alma gibi üst düzey dil süreçlerinde rol oynadığı ortaya konulmaktadır. Derlemenin ortaya koyduğu mevcut bulgular, nöromodülasyon tekniklerinin pragmatik dilin farklı boyutlarını aydınlatmadaki potansiyelini vurgulamakla beraber; pragmatik dil bozukluğu olan klinik gruplara yönelik beyin uyarım teknikleri ile yapılacak daha fazla araştırmaya ihtiyaç duyulduğunu da göstermektedir.

Keywords

nöropragmatik imgesel dil beyin uyarımı transkraniyal manyetik uyarım transkraniyal doğru akım uyarımı

References

  • Arcara, G., Tonini, E., Muriago, G., Mondin, E., Sgarabottolo, E., Bertagnoni, G., & Bambini, V. (2020). Pragmatics and figurative language in individuals with traumatic brain injury: Fine-grained assessment and relevance-theoretic considerations. Aphasiology, 34(8), 1070-1100.
  • Armstrong, D., Stokoe, W. and Wilcox, S. (1995) Gesture and the Nature of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620911
  • Bambini, V., Gentili, C., Ricciardi, E., Bertinetto, P. M., & Pietrini, P. (2011). Decomposing metaphor processing at the cognitive and neural level through functional magnetic resonance imaging. Brain research bulletin, 86(3-4), 203-216.
  • Bambini, V., Tonini, E., Ceccato, I., Lecce, S., Marocchini, E., & Cavallini, E. (2020). How to improve social communication in aging: Pragmatic and cognitive interventions. Brain and Language, 211, 104864.
  • Bambini, V., Van Looy, L., Demiddele, K., & Schaeken, W. (2021). What is the contribution of executive functions to communicative-pragmatic skills? Insights from aging and different types of pragmatic inference. Cognitive processing, 22(3), 435-452.
  • Barker AT, Jalinous R, Freeston IL (1985) Noninvasive magnetic stimulation of human motor cortex. Lancet 1:1106–1107.
  • Bosco, F. M., Parola, A., Sacco, K., Zettin, M., & Angeleri, R. (2017). Communicative-pragmatic disorders in traumatic brain injury: The role of theory of mind and executive functions. Brain and language, 168, 73-83.
  • Bottini, G., Corcoran, R., Sterzi, R., Paulesu, E., Schenone, P., Scarpa, P., ... & Frith, D. (1994). The role of the right hemisphere in the interpretation of figurative aspects of language A positron emission tomography activation study. Brain, 117(6), 1241-1253.
  • Boux, I. P., & Pulvermüller, F. (2023). Does the right temporo-parietal junction play a role in processing indirect speech acts? A transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Neuropsychologia, 176, Article 108295.
  • Brownell, H. H., Simpson, T. L., Bihrle, A. M., Potter, H. H., & Gardner, H. (1990). Appreciation of metaphoric alternative word meanings by left and right brain-damaged patients. Neuropsychologia, 28(4), 375-383.
  • Cacciari, C., & Glucksberg, S. (1995). Understanding idioms: Do visual images reflect figurative meanings?. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 7(3), 283-305.
  • Cardillo, E. R., McQuire, M., & Chatterjee, A. (2018). Selective metaphor impairments after left, not right, hemisphere injury. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 2308.
  • Champagne-Lavau, M., & Joanette, Y. (2009). Pragmatics, theory of mind and executive functions after a right-hemisphere lesion: Different patterns of deficits. Journal of neurolinguistics, 22(5), 413-426.
  • Champagne-Lavau, M., & Stip, E. (2010). Pragmatic and executive dysfunction in schizophrenia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 23(3), 285-296.
  • Corcoran, R., Mercer, G., & Frith, C. D. (1995). Schizophrenia, symptomatology and social inference: investigating “theory of mind” in people with schizophrenia. Schizophrenia research, 17(1), 5-13.
  • Dennis, M., Lazenby, A. L., & Lockyer, L. (2001). Inferential language in high-function children with autism. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 31, 47-54.
  • Devlin, J. T., & Watkins, K. E. (2007). Stimulating language: insights from TMS. Brain, 130(3), 610-622.
  • Dick, A. S., Mok, E. H., Beharelle, A. R., Goldin‐Meadow, S., & Small, S. L. (2014). Frontal and temporal contributions to understanding the iconic co‐speech gestures that accompany speech. Human brain mapping, 35(3), 900-917.
  • Feng, W., Wu, Y., Jan, C., Yu, H., Jiang, X., & Zhou, X. (2017). Effects of contextual relevance on pragmatic inference during conversation: An fMRI study. Brain and Language, 171, 52-61.
  • Feng, W., Yu, H., & Zhou, X. (2021). Understanding particularized and generalized conversational implicatures: Is theory-of-mind necessary?. Brain and Language, 212, 104878.
  • Ferré P, Fonseca RP, Ska B, & Joanette Y (2012). Communicative clusters after a right-hemisphere stroke: are there universal clinical profiles? Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 64(4), 199–207. 10.1159/000340017
  • Fernández, C. (2013). Mindful storytellers: Emerging pragmatics and theory of mind development. First Language, 33(1), 20-46.
  • Ferstl, E. C., Neumann, J., Bogler, C., & Von Cramon, D. Y. (2008). The extended language network: a meta‐analysis of neuroimaging studies on text comprehension. Human brain mapping, 29(5), 581-593.
  • Flöel, A. (2012). Non-invasive brain stimulation and language processing in the healthy brain. Aphasiology, 26(9), 1082-1102.
  • Flöel, A., Rösser, N., Michka, O., Knecht, S., & Breitenstein, C. (2008). Noninvasive brain stimulation improves language learning. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 20(8), 1415-1422.
  • Fogliata, A., Rizzo, S., Reati, F., Miniussi, C., Oliveri, M., & Papagno, C. (2007). The time course of idiom processing. Neuropsychologia, 45(14), 3215-3222.
  • Frith, U., & Frith, C. D. (2003). Development and neurophysiology of mentalizing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 358(1431), 459-473.
  • Galletta, E. E., Rao, P. R., & Barrett, A. M. (2011). Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS): potential progress for language improvement in aphasia. Topics in stroke rehabilitation, 18(2), 87-91.
  • Gentilucci, M., Bernardis, P., Crisi, G., & Volta, R. D. (2006). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of Broca's area affects verbal responses to gesture observation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(7), 1059-1074.
  • Gibson, L., Atchley, R. A., Voyer, D., Diener, U. S., & Gregersen, S. (2016). Detection of sarcastic speech: The role of the right hemisphere in ambiguity resolution. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 21(4-6), 549-567.
  • Hage, S. V. R., Sawasaki, L. Y., Hyter, Y., & Fernandes, F. D. M. (2021, December). Social communication and pragmatic skills of children with autism spectrum disorder and developmental language disorder. In CoDAS (Vol. 34, No. 2, p. e20210075). Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia.
  • Hallett, M. (2007). Transcranial magnetic stimulation: a primer. Neuron, 55(2), 187-199.
  • Häuser, K. I., Titone, D. A., & Baum, S. R. (2016). The role of the ventro-lateral prefrontal cortex in idiom comprehension: An rTMS study. Neuropsychologia, 91, 360-370.
  • Hamblin, J. L., & Gibbs Jr, R. W. (2003). Processing the meanings of what speakers say and implicate. Discourse Processes, 35(1), 59-80.
  • Hartwigsen, G., & Siebner, H. R. (2012). Probing the involvement of the right hemisphere in language processing with online transcranial magnetic stimulation in healthy volunteers. Aphasiology, 26(9), 1131-1152.
  • Hauptman, M., Blank, I., & Fedorenko, E. (2023). Non-literal language processing is jointly supported by the language and theory of mind networks: evidence from a novel meta-analytic fMRI approach. Cortex, 162, 96-114.
  • Hewes, G. W. (1973). An explicit formulation of the relationship between tool-using, tool-making, and the emergence of language. Visible Language, 7(2), 101-127.
  • Holtgraves, T. (1999). Comprehending indirect replies: When and how are their conveyed meanings activated?. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(4), 519-540.
  • Holtgraves, T., & McNamara, P. (2010). Pragmatic comprehension deficit in Parkinson's disease. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 32(4), 388-397.
  • Iyer, M. B., Mattu, U., Grafman, J., Lomarev, M., Sato, S., & Wassermann, E. M. (2005). Safety and cognitive effect of frontal DC brain polarization in healthy individuals. Neurology, 64(5), 872-875.
  • Jang, G., Yoon, S. A., Lee, S. E., Park, H., Kim, J., Ko, J. H., & Park, H. J. (2013). Everyday conversation requires cognitive inference: Neural bases of comprehending implicated meanings in conversations. NeuroImage, 81, 61-72.
  • Kurada, H. Z., Arıca-Akkök, E., Özaydın-Aksun, Z., Şener, H. Ö., & Lavidor, M. (2021). The impact of transparency on hemispheric lateralization of idiom comprehension: An rTMS study. Neuropsychologia, 163, 108062.
  • Lee, S. S., & Dapretto, M. (2006). Metaphorical vs. literal word meanings: fMRI evidence against a selective role of the right hemisphere. NeuroImage, 29(2), 536-544.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2016). Turn-taking in human communication–origins and implications for language processing. Trends in cognitive sciences, 20(1), 6-14.
  • Lifshitz-Ben-Basat, A., & Mashal, N. (2021). Enhancing creativity by altering the frontoparietal control network functioning using transcranial direct current stimulation. Experimental Brain Research, 239, 613-626.
  • Lindell, A. K. (2006). In your right mind: Right hemisphere contributions to language processing and production. Neuropsychology review, 16(3), 131-148.
  • Lundgren, K., Brownell, H., Roy, S., & Cayer-Meade, C. (2006). A metaphor comprehension intervention for patients with right hemisphere brain damage: A pilot study. Brain and Language, 99(1-2), 69-70.
  • Pisano, F., & Marangolo, P. (2020). Looking at ancillary systems for verb recovery: Evidence from non-invasive brain stimulation. Brain and Cognition, 139, 105515.
  • Martín-Luengo, B., Vorobiova, A. N., Feurra, M., Myachykov, A., & Shtyrov, Y. (2023). Transcranial magnetic stimulation of the left middle frontal gyrus modulates the information people communicate in different social contexts. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 9995.
  • Martín-Rodríguez, J. F., & León-Carrión, J. (2010). Theory of mind deficits in patients with acquired brain injury: A quantitative review. Neuropsychologia, 48(5), 1181-1191.
  • Massoni, L. (2024). Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (TDCS) in Autism Spectrum Disorder. Med Discoveries, 3(1), 1107
  • McDonald, S. (2000). Exploring the cognitive basis of right-hemisphere pragmatic language disorders. Brain and language, 75(1), 82-107.
  • Minga, J., Sheppard, S. M., Johnson, M., Hewetson, R., Cornwell, P., & Blake, M. L. (2023). Apragmatism: The renewal of a label for communication disorders associated with right hemisphere brain damage. International journal of language & communication disorders, 58(2), 651-666.
  • Mitchell, R. L., Vidaki, K., & Lavidor, M. (2016). The role of left and right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in semantic processing: A transcranial direct current stimulation study. Neuropsychologia, 91, 480-489.
  • Mitchell, W. J. (2009). Visual literacy or literary visualcy?. In Visual literacy (pp. 19-38). Routledge.
  • Mitchley, N. J., Barber, J., Gray, J. M., Brooks, D. N., & Livingston, M. G. (1998). Comprehension of irony in schizophrenia. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 3(2), 127-138.
  • Monti, A., Ferrucci, R., Fumagalli, M., Mameli, F., Cogiamanian, F., Ardolino, G., & Priori, A. (2013). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and language. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 84(8), 832-842.
  • Nitsche, M. A., & Paulus, W. (2000). Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. The Journal of physiology, 527(Pt 3), 633.
  • Nitsche, M. A., Seeber, A., Frommann, K., Klein, C. C., Rochford, C., Nitsche, M. S., ... & Tergau, F. (2005). Modulating parameters of excitability during and after transcranial direct current stimulation of the human motor cortex. The Journal of physiology, 568(1), 291-303.
  • Noveck, I. (2018). Experimental pragmatics: The making of a cognitive science. Cambridge University Press.
  • Ntemou, E., Svaldi, C., Jonkers, R., Picht, T., & Rofes, A. (2023). Verb and sentence processing with TMS: a systematic review and meta-analysis. cortex, 162, 38-55.
  • Oliveri, M., Romero, L., & Papagno, C. (2004). Left but not right temporal involvement in opaque idiom comprehension: A repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Journal of cognitive Neuroscience, 16(5), 848-855.
  • Osovlanski, H., & Mashal, N. (2017). The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on pragmatic processing. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 44, 239-248.
  • Pascual-Leone, A. (1999). Transcranial magnetic stimulation: studying the brain--behaviour relationship by induction of ‘virtual lesions’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 354(1387), 1229-1238.
  • Pascual-Leone, A., Valls-Solé, J., Wassermann, E. M., & Hallett, M. (1994). Responses to rapid-rate transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human motor cortex. Brain, 117(4), 847-858.
  • Pascual-Leone, A., Walsh, V., & Rothwell, J. (2000). Transcranial magnetic stimulation in cognitive neuroscience–virtual lesion, chronometry, and functional connectivity. Current opinion in neurobiology, 10(2), 232-237.
  • Pascual‐Leone, A., Gates, J. R., & Dhuna, A. (1991). Induction of speech arrest and counting errors with rapid‐rate transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neurology, 41(5), 697-702.
  • Pijnacker, J., Vervloed, M. P., & Steenbergen, B. (2012). Pragmatic abilities in children with congenital visual impairment: An exploration of non-literal language and advanced theory of mind understanding. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 42, 2440-2449.
  • Pobric, G., Mashal, N., Faust, M., & Lavidor, M. (2008). The role of the right cerebral hemisphere in processing novel metaphoric expressions: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 20(1), 170-181.
  • Rapp, A. M., & Wild, B. (2011). Nonliteral language in Alzheimer dementia: a review. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 17(2), 207-218.
  • Rapp, A. M., Leube, D. T., Erb, M., Grodd, W., & Kircher, T. T. (2004). Neural correlates of metaphor processing. Cognitive brain research, 20(3), 395-402.
  • Reindal, L., Nærland, T., Weidle, B., Lydersen, S., Andreassen, O. A., & Sund, A. M. (2021). Structural and pragmatic language impairments in children evaluated for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 1-19.
  • Rizzo, S., Sandrini, M., & Papagno, C. (2007). The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in idiom interpretation: An rTMS study. Brain research bulletin, 71(5), 523-528.
  • Rowley, D. A., Rogish, M., Alexander, T., & Riggs, K. J. (2017). Cognitive correlates of pragmatic language comprehension in adult traumatic brain injury: A systematic review and meta-analyses. Brain injury, 31(12), 1564-1574.
  • Sakın, B. (2021). Pragmatic language disorders resulting from semantic degradation in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences, 11(3), 523-528.
  • Sela, T., Ivry, R. B., & Lavidor, M. (2012). Prefrontal control during a semantic decision task that involves idiom comprehension: a transcranial direct current stimulation study. Neuropsychologia, 50(9), 2271-2280.
  • Schneider, H. D., & Hopp, J. P. (2011). The use of the Bilingual Aphasia Test for assessment and transcranial direct current stimulation to modulate language acquisition in minimally verbal children with autism. Clinical linguistics & phonetics, 25(6-7), 640-654.
  • Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Tomer, R., Yaniv, S., & Aharon-Peretz, J. (2002). Empathy deficits in Asperger syndrome: A cognitive profile. Neurocase, 8(3), 245-252.
  • Shammi, P., & Stuss, D. T. (1999). Humour appreciation: a role of the right frontal lobe. Brain, 122(4), 657-666.
  • Sheppard SM, Meier EL, Durfee AZ, Walker A, Shea J, & Hillis AE (2021). Characterizing subtypes and neural correlates of receptive aprosodia in acute right hemisphere stroke. Cortex, 141, 36–54.
  • Shibata, M., Abe, J. I., Itoh, H., Shimada, K., & Umeda, S. (2011). Neural processing associated with comprehension of an indirect reply during a scenario reading task. Neuropsychologia, 49(13), 3542-3550.
  • Shibata, M., Toyomura, A., Itoh, H., & Abe, J. I. (2010). Neural substrates of irony comprehension: A functional MRI study. Brain research, 1308, 114-123.
  • Spotorno, N., Koun, E., Prado, J., Van Der Henst, J. B., & Noveck, I. A. (2012). Neural evidence that utterance-processing entails mentalizing: The case of irony. NeuroImage, 63(1), 25-39.
  • Straube, B., Green, A., Weis, S., & Kircher, T. (2012). A supramodal neural network for speech and gesture semantics: an fMRI study. PloS one, 7(11), e51207.
  • Stemmer, B. (2008). Neuropragmatics. The handbook of clinical linguistics, 61-78.
  • Tomasello, R. (2023). Linguistic signs in action: The neuropragmatics of speech acts. Brain and Language, 236, 105203.
  • Torres, J., Drebing, D., & Hamilton, R. (2013). TMS and tDCS in post-stroke aphasia: Integrating novel treatment approaches with mechanisms of plasticity. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 31(4), 501-515.
  • Trott, S., Reed, S., Ferreira, V., & Bergen, B. K. (2019). Prosodic cues signal the intent of potential indirect requests. In CogSci (pp. 1142-1148).
  • Weed E (2011). What’s left to learn about right hemisphere damage and pragmatic impairment? Aphasiology, 25:8, 872–889, DOI: 10.1080/02687038.2010.545423 10.1006/brln.1997.1889
  • Willems, R. M., & Hagoort, P. (2007). Neural evidence for the interplay between language, gesture, and action: A review. Brain and language, 101(3), 278-289.
  • Winner, E., Brownell, H., Happé, F., Blum, A., & Pincus, D. (1998). Distinguishing lies from jokes: Theory of mind deficits and discourse interpretation in right hemisphere brain-damaged patients. Brain and language, 62(1), 89-106.
  • Zhao, W., Riggs, K., Schindler, I., & Holle, H. (2018). Transcranial magnetic stimulation over left inferior frontal and posterior temporal cortex disrupts gesture-speech integration. Journal of Neuroscience, 38(8), 1891-1900.

Neurostimulation in Pragmatic Language Research: A Comprehensive Review

Year 2025, Volume: 36 Issue: 1, 83 - 108, 29.06.2025

Hazel Zeynep Kurada

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1545559

Abstract

Pragmatic language involves the use of language in social interactions, including understanding conversational norms, interpreting non-literal language, and using language appropriately in various social contexts. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in using brain stimulation techniques to study pragmatic language in both healthy and clinical populations. This review synthesizes recent research on the application of transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation in pragmatic language studies, highlighting the critical roles of brain regions such as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the right temporo-parietal junction, and the left middle frontal gyrus. These areas are implicated in various aspects of pragmatic language, including the processing of idiomatic expressions, the comprehension of indirect speech acts, and decision-making during communication. While current research underscores the promise of these neuromodulation techniques, further studies are needed to optimize their application in both theoretical and clinical contexts.

Keywords

neuropragmatics non-literal language neurostimulation transcranial magnetic stimulation

Ethical Statement

Author Contributions: This research and all stages related to the research were conducted by a single author. Submission statement and verification: This study has not been previously published elsewhere. It is not under review in another journal. Publication of the study has been approved, either implicitly or explicitly, by all authors and the responsible authorities at the university/research center where the study was conducted. If the study is accepted for publication, it will not be published in the same form in another printed or electronic medium in Turkish or any other language without the written permission of the Journal of Linguistic Research. Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that there are no financial or academic conflicts of interest between themselves or with other institutions, organizations or individuals that may affect this study. Data Use: No data was used in this study. Ethical Approval/Participant Consent: There is no need for ethical approval in the study. Financial Support: No financial support was received for the study.

References

  • Arcara, G., Tonini, E., Muriago, G., Mondin, E., Sgarabottolo, E., Bertagnoni, G., & Bambini, V. (2020). Pragmatics and figurative language in individuals with traumatic brain injury: Fine-grained assessment and relevance-theoretic considerations. Aphasiology, 34(8), 1070-1100.
  • Armstrong, D., Stokoe, W. and Wilcox, S. (1995) Gesture and the Nature of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620911
  • Bambini, V., Gentili, C., Ricciardi, E., Bertinetto, P. M., & Pietrini, P. (2011). Decomposing metaphor processing at the cognitive and neural level through functional magnetic resonance imaging. Brain research bulletin, 86(3-4), 203-216.
  • Bambini, V., Tonini, E., Ceccato, I., Lecce, S., Marocchini, E., & Cavallini, E. (2020). How to improve social communication in aging: Pragmatic and cognitive interventions. Brain and Language, 211, 104864.
  • Bambini, V., Van Looy, L., Demiddele, K., & Schaeken, W. (2021). What is the contribution of executive functions to communicative-pragmatic skills? Insights from aging and different types of pragmatic inference. Cognitive processing, 22(3), 435-452.
  • Barker AT, Jalinous R, Freeston IL (1985) Noninvasive magnetic stimulation of human motor cortex. Lancet 1:1106–1107.
  • Bosco, F. M., Parola, A., Sacco, K., Zettin, M., & Angeleri, R. (2017). Communicative-pragmatic disorders in traumatic brain injury: The role of theory of mind and executive functions. Brain and language, 168, 73-83.
  • Bottini, G., Corcoran, R., Sterzi, R., Paulesu, E., Schenone, P., Scarpa, P., ... & Frith, D. (1994). The role of the right hemisphere in the interpretation of figurative aspects of language A positron emission tomography activation study. Brain, 117(6), 1241-1253.
  • Boux, I. P., & Pulvermüller, F. (2023). Does the right temporo-parietal junction play a role in processing indirect speech acts? A transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Neuropsychologia, 176, Article 108295.
  • Brownell, H. H., Simpson, T. L., Bihrle, A. M., Potter, H. H., & Gardner, H. (1990). Appreciation of metaphoric alternative word meanings by left and right brain-damaged patients. Neuropsychologia, 28(4), 375-383.
  • Cacciari, C., & Glucksberg, S. (1995). Understanding idioms: Do visual images reflect figurative meanings?. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 7(3), 283-305.
  • Cardillo, E. R., McQuire, M., & Chatterjee, A. (2018). Selective metaphor impairments after left, not right, hemisphere injury. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 2308.
  • Champagne-Lavau, M., & Joanette, Y. (2009). Pragmatics, theory of mind and executive functions after a right-hemisphere lesion: Different patterns of deficits. Journal of neurolinguistics, 22(5), 413-426.
  • Champagne-Lavau, M., & Stip, E. (2010). Pragmatic and executive dysfunction in schizophrenia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 23(3), 285-296.
  • Corcoran, R., Mercer, G., & Frith, C. D. (1995). Schizophrenia, symptomatology and social inference: investigating “theory of mind” in people with schizophrenia. Schizophrenia research, 17(1), 5-13.
  • Dennis, M., Lazenby, A. L., & Lockyer, L. (2001). Inferential language in high-function children with autism. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 31, 47-54.
  • Devlin, J. T., & Watkins, K. E. (2007). Stimulating language: insights from TMS. Brain, 130(3), 610-622.
  • Dick, A. S., Mok, E. H., Beharelle, A. R., Goldin‐Meadow, S., & Small, S. L. (2014). Frontal and temporal contributions to understanding the iconic co‐speech gestures that accompany speech. Human brain mapping, 35(3), 900-917.
  • Feng, W., Wu, Y., Jan, C., Yu, H., Jiang, X., & Zhou, X. (2017). Effects of contextual relevance on pragmatic inference during conversation: An fMRI study. Brain and Language, 171, 52-61.
  • Feng, W., Yu, H., & Zhou, X. (2021). Understanding particularized and generalized conversational implicatures: Is theory-of-mind necessary?. Brain and Language, 212, 104878.
  • Ferré P, Fonseca RP, Ska B, & Joanette Y (2012). Communicative clusters after a right-hemisphere stroke: are there universal clinical profiles? Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 64(4), 199–207. 10.1159/000340017
  • Fernández, C. (2013). Mindful storytellers: Emerging pragmatics and theory of mind development. First Language, 33(1), 20-46.
  • Ferstl, E. C., Neumann, J., Bogler, C., & Von Cramon, D. Y. (2008). The extended language network: a meta‐analysis of neuroimaging studies on text comprehension. Human brain mapping, 29(5), 581-593.
  • Flöel, A. (2012). Non-invasive brain stimulation and language processing in the healthy brain. Aphasiology, 26(9), 1082-1102.
  • Flöel, A., Rösser, N., Michka, O., Knecht, S., & Breitenstein, C. (2008). Noninvasive brain stimulation improves language learning. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 20(8), 1415-1422.
  • Fogliata, A., Rizzo, S., Reati, F., Miniussi, C., Oliveri, M., & Papagno, C. (2007). The time course of idiom processing. Neuropsychologia, 45(14), 3215-3222.
  • Frith, U., & Frith, C. D. (2003). Development and neurophysiology of mentalizing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 358(1431), 459-473.
  • Galletta, E. E., Rao, P. R., & Barrett, A. M. (2011). Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS): potential progress for language improvement in aphasia. Topics in stroke rehabilitation, 18(2), 87-91.
  • Gentilucci, M., Bernardis, P., Crisi, G., & Volta, R. D. (2006). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of Broca's area affects verbal responses to gesture observation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(7), 1059-1074.
  • Gibson, L., Atchley, R. A., Voyer, D., Diener, U. S., & Gregersen, S. (2016). Detection of sarcastic speech: The role of the right hemisphere in ambiguity resolution. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 21(4-6), 549-567.
  • Hage, S. V. R., Sawasaki, L. Y., Hyter, Y., & Fernandes, F. D. M. (2021, December). Social communication and pragmatic skills of children with autism spectrum disorder and developmental language disorder. In CoDAS (Vol. 34, No. 2, p. e20210075). Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia.
  • Hallett, M. (2007). Transcranial magnetic stimulation: a primer. Neuron, 55(2), 187-199.
  • Häuser, K. I., Titone, D. A., & Baum, S. R. (2016). The role of the ventro-lateral prefrontal cortex in idiom comprehension: An rTMS study. Neuropsychologia, 91, 360-370.
  • Hamblin, J. L., & Gibbs Jr, R. W. (2003). Processing the meanings of what speakers say and implicate. Discourse Processes, 35(1), 59-80.
  • Hartwigsen, G., & Siebner, H. R. (2012). Probing the involvement of the right hemisphere in language processing with online transcranial magnetic stimulation in healthy volunteers. Aphasiology, 26(9), 1131-1152.
  • Hauptman, M., Blank, I., & Fedorenko, E. (2023). Non-literal language processing is jointly supported by the language and theory of mind networks: evidence from a novel meta-analytic fMRI approach. Cortex, 162, 96-114.
  • Hewes, G. W. (1973). An explicit formulation of the relationship between tool-using, tool-making, and the emergence of language. Visible Language, 7(2), 101-127.
  • Holtgraves, T. (1999). Comprehending indirect replies: When and how are their conveyed meanings activated?. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(4), 519-540.
  • Holtgraves, T., & McNamara, P. (2010). Pragmatic comprehension deficit in Parkinson's disease. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 32(4), 388-397.
  • Iyer, M. B., Mattu, U., Grafman, J., Lomarev, M., Sato, S., & Wassermann, E. M. (2005). Safety and cognitive effect of frontal DC brain polarization in healthy individuals. Neurology, 64(5), 872-875.
  • Jang, G., Yoon, S. A., Lee, S. E., Park, H., Kim, J., Ko, J. H., & Park, H. J. (2013). Everyday conversation requires cognitive inference: Neural bases of comprehending implicated meanings in conversations. NeuroImage, 81, 61-72.
  • Kurada, H. Z., Arıca-Akkök, E., Özaydın-Aksun, Z., Şener, H. Ö., & Lavidor, M. (2021). The impact of transparency on hemispheric lateralization of idiom comprehension: An rTMS study. Neuropsychologia, 163, 108062.
  • Lee, S. S., & Dapretto, M. (2006). Metaphorical vs. literal word meanings: fMRI evidence against a selective role of the right hemisphere. NeuroImage, 29(2), 536-544.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2016). Turn-taking in human communication–origins and implications for language processing. Trends in cognitive sciences, 20(1), 6-14.
  • Lifshitz-Ben-Basat, A., & Mashal, N. (2021). Enhancing creativity by altering the frontoparietal control network functioning using transcranial direct current stimulation. Experimental Brain Research, 239, 613-626.
  • Lindell, A. K. (2006). In your right mind: Right hemisphere contributions to language processing and production. Neuropsychology review, 16(3), 131-148.
  • Lundgren, K., Brownell, H., Roy, S., & Cayer-Meade, C. (2006). A metaphor comprehension intervention for patients with right hemisphere brain damage: A pilot study. Brain and Language, 99(1-2), 69-70.
  • Pisano, F., & Marangolo, P. (2020). Looking at ancillary systems for verb recovery: Evidence from non-invasive brain stimulation. Brain and Cognition, 139, 105515.
  • Martín-Luengo, B., Vorobiova, A. N., Feurra, M., Myachykov, A., & Shtyrov, Y. (2023). Transcranial magnetic stimulation of the left middle frontal gyrus modulates the information people communicate in different social contexts. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 9995.
  • Martín-Rodríguez, J. F., & León-Carrión, J. (2010). Theory of mind deficits in patients with acquired brain injury: A quantitative review. Neuropsychologia, 48(5), 1181-1191.
  • Massoni, L. (2024). Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (TDCS) in Autism Spectrum Disorder. Med Discoveries, 3(1), 1107
  • McDonald, S. (2000). Exploring the cognitive basis of right-hemisphere pragmatic language disorders. Brain and language, 75(1), 82-107.
  • Minga, J., Sheppard, S. M., Johnson, M., Hewetson, R., Cornwell, P., & Blake, M. L. (2023). Apragmatism: The renewal of a label for communication disorders associated with right hemisphere brain damage. International journal of language & communication disorders, 58(2), 651-666.
  • Mitchell, R. L., Vidaki, K., & Lavidor, M. (2016). The role of left and right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in semantic processing: A transcranial direct current stimulation study. Neuropsychologia, 91, 480-489.
  • Mitchell, W. J. (2009). Visual literacy or literary visualcy?. In Visual literacy (pp. 19-38). Routledge.
  • Mitchley, N. J., Barber, J., Gray, J. M., Brooks, D. N., & Livingston, M. G. (1998). Comprehension of irony in schizophrenia. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 3(2), 127-138.
  • Monti, A., Ferrucci, R., Fumagalli, M., Mameli, F., Cogiamanian, F., Ardolino, G., & Priori, A. (2013). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and language. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 84(8), 832-842.
  • Nitsche, M. A., & Paulus, W. (2000). Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. The Journal of physiology, 527(Pt 3), 633.
  • Nitsche, M. A., Seeber, A., Frommann, K., Klein, C. C., Rochford, C., Nitsche, M. S., ... & Tergau, F. (2005). Modulating parameters of excitability during and after transcranial direct current stimulation of the human motor cortex. The Journal of physiology, 568(1), 291-303.
  • Noveck, I. (2018). Experimental pragmatics: The making of a cognitive science. Cambridge University Press.
  • Ntemou, E., Svaldi, C., Jonkers, R., Picht, T., & Rofes, A. (2023). Verb and sentence processing with TMS: a systematic review and meta-analysis. cortex, 162, 38-55.
  • Oliveri, M., Romero, L., & Papagno, C. (2004). Left but not right temporal involvement in opaque idiom comprehension: A repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Journal of cognitive Neuroscience, 16(5), 848-855.
  • Osovlanski, H., & Mashal, N. (2017). The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on pragmatic processing. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 44, 239-248.
  • Pascual-Leone, A. (1999). Transcranial magnetic stimulation: studying the brain--behaviour relationship by induction of ‘virtual lesions’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 354(1387), 1229-1238.
  • Pascual-Leone, A., Valls-Solé, J., Wassermann, E. M., & Hallett, M. (1994). Responses to rapid-rate transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human motor cortex. Brain, 117(4), 847-858.
  • Pascual-Leone, A., Walsh, V., & Rothwell, J. (2000). Transcranial magnetic stimulation in cognitive neuroscience–virtual lesion, chronometry, and functional connectivity. Current opinion in neurobiology, 10(2), 232-237.
  • Pascual‐Leone, A., Gates, J. R., & Dhuna, A. (1991). Induction of speech arrest and counting errors with rapid‐rate transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neurology, 41(5), 697-702.
  • Pijnacker, J., Vervloed, M. P., & Steenbergen, B. (2012). Pragmatic abilities in children with congenital visual impairment: An exploration of non-literal language and advanced theory of mind understanding. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 42, 2440-2449.
  • Pobric, G., Mashal, N., Faust, M., & Lavidor, M. (2008). The role of the right cerebral hemisphere in processing novel metaphoric expressions: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 20(1), 170-181.
  • Rapp, A. M., & Wild, B. (2011). Nonliteral language in Alzheimer dementia: a review. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 17(2), 207-218.
  • Rapp, A. M., Leube, D. T., Erb, M., Grodd, W., & Kircher, T. T. (2004). Neural correlates of metaphor processing. Cognitive brain research, 20(3), 395-402.
  • Reindal, L., Nærland, T., Weidle, B., Lydersen, S., Andreassen, O. A., & Sund, A. M. (2021). Structural and pragmatic language impairments in children evaluated for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 1-19.
  • Rizzo, S., Sandrini, M., & Papagno, C. (2007). The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in idiom interpretation: An rTMS study. Brain research bulletin, 71(5), 523-528.
  • Rowley, D. A., Rogish, M., Alexander, T., & Riggs, K. J. (2017). Cognitive correlates of pragmatic language comprehension in adult traumatic brain injury: A systematic review and meta-analyses. Brain injury, 31(12), 1564-1574.
  • Sakın, B. (2021). Pragmatic language disorders resulting from semantic degradation in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences, 11(3), 523-528.
  • Sela, T., Ivry, R. B., & Lavidor, M. (2012). Prefrontal control during a semantic decision task that involves idiom comprehension: a transcranial direct current stimulation study. Neuropsychologia, 50(9), 2271-2280.
  • Schneider, H. D., & Hopp, J. P. (2011). The use of the Bilingual Aphasia Test for assessment and transcranial direct current stimulation to modulate language acquisition in minimally verbal children with autism. Clinical linguistics & phonetics, 25(6-7), 640-654.
  • Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Tomer, R., Yaniv, S., & Aharon-Peretz, J. (2002). Empathy deficits in Asperger syndrome: A cognitive profile. Neurocase, 8(3), 245-252.
  • Shammi, P., & Stuss, D. T. (1999). Humour appreciation: a role of the right frontal lobe. Brain, 122(4), 657-666.
  • Sheppard SM, Meier EL, Durfee AZ, Walker A, Shea J, & Hillis AE (2021). Characterizing subtypes and neural correlates of receptive aprosodia in acute right hemisphere stroke. Cortex, 141, 36–54.
  • Shibata, M., Abe, J. I., Itoh, H., Shimada, K., & Umeda, S. (2011). Neural processing associated with comprehension of an indirect reply during a scenario reading task. Neuropsychologia, 49(13), 3542-3550.
  • Shibata, M., Toyomura, A., Itoh, H., & Abe, J. I. (2010). Neural substrates of irony comprehension: A functional MRI study. Brain research, 1308, 114-123.
  • Spotorno, N., Koun, E., Prado, J., Van Der Henst, J. B., & Noveck, I. A. (2012). Neural evidence that utterance-processing entails mentalizing: The case of irony. NeuroImage, 63(1), 25-39.
  • Straube, B., Green, A., Weis, S., & Kircher, T. (2012). A supramodal neural network for speech and gesture semantics: an fMRI study. PloS one, 7(11), e51207.
  • Stemmer, B. (2008). Neuropragmatics. The handbook of clinical linguistics, 61-78.
  • Tomasello, R. (2023). Linguistic signs in action: The neuropragmatics of speech acts. Brain and Language, 236, 105203.
  • Torres, J., Drebing, D., & Hamilton, R. (2013). TMS and tDCS in post-stroke aphasia: Integrating novel treatment approaches with mechanisms of plasticity. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 31(4), 501-515.
  • Trott, S., Reed, S., Ferreira, V., & Bergen, B. K. (2019). Prosodic cues signal the intent of potential indirect requests. In CogSci (pp. 1142-1148).
  • Weed E (2011). What’s left to learn about right hemisphere damage and pragmatic impairment? Aphasiology, 25:8, 872–889, DOI: 10.1080/02687038.2010.545423 10.1006/brln.1997.1889
  • Willems, R. M., & Hagoort, P. (2007). Neural evidence for the interplay between language, gesture, and action: A review. Brain and language, 101(3), 278-289.
  • Winner, E., Brownell, H., Happé, F., Blum, A., & Pincus, D. (1998). Distinguishing lies from jokes: Theory of mind deficits and discourse interpretation in right hemisphere brain-damaged patients. Brain and language, 62(1), 89-106.
  • Zhao, W., Riggs, K., Schindler, I., & Holle, H. (2018). Transcranial magnetic stimulation over left inferior frontal and posterior temporal cortex disrupts gesture-speech integration. Journal of Neuroscience, 38(8), 1891-1900.
There are 92 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Linguistic Performance Science
Journal Section Review Articles
Authors

Hazel Zeynep Kurada 0000-0003-1096-1086

Publication Date June 29, 2025
Submission Date September 8, 2024
Acceptance Date March 1, 2025
Published in Issue Year 2025 Volume: 36 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Kurada, H. Z. (2025). Neurostimulation in Pragmatic Language Research: A Comprehensive Review. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 36(1), 83-108. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1545559

88x31.png

This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND) International License.


Journal DOI: 10.18492/dad