Abstract

Miscomprehension of nonliteral (“figurative”) language like metaphors, proverbs, idioms, and ironic expressions by patients with schizophrenia is a phenomenon mentioned already in historical psychiatric descriptions. However, it was only recently that studies did differentiate between novel and conventional metaphors, a factor that is known to influence the difficulty of comprehension in healthy subjects. Further, familiarity with stimuli is an important factor for comprehension, which was not recommended in utmost previous studies. In this study, 23 patients with DSM IV schizophrenia and 19 healthy control subjects performed a newly-developed German metaphor comprehension test with three types of stimuli: novel metaphors, conventional German metaphors, and meaningless statements. During the test procedure, participants indicated familiarity with the stimulus and then matched the meaning with one out of four given alternatives. Familiarity rankings did not significantly differ between patients and control subjects. However, on descriptive level, there was a tendency for healthy controls to be more familiar with conventional metaphors than schizophrenic patients. Further, comprehension of conventional and novel metaphors differed significantly between the groups, with higher performance in healthy controls. Considering only those metaphors that had been ranked as familiar, patients only revealed significant lower performance opposed to controls regarding novel metaphors, while they did not differ in conventional metaphors. Taken together, the results indicate that patients with schizophrenia might show an altered way of comprehension in novel metaphors, leading to more misunderstandings. However, their previously reported impairments in conventional metaphors might rather be due to a lack of familiarity with the stimuli—making conventional metaphors to novel metaphors in the individual case.

Highlights

  • Figurative language impairment has been documented for a variety of clinical diseases and has fascinated psychiatric researchers and clinicians for decades (Kleist, 1914; Kasanin, 1944; Kanner, 1946)

  • Subjects classified each stimulus as being “familiar” or “unfamiliar.” To examine the individually perceived familiarity between groups and every type of nonliteral language, Repeated measure analysis of variance (rmANOVA) was applied with group as between-subjects factor, metaphor type as within-subjects factor and familiarity scores as dependent variable

  • Post-hoc pairwise comparison using the Bonferroni correction exploring the main effect of stimulus type revealed significant difference in familiarity ranking between all conditions, confirming that conventional metaphors (M = 10.83) in the test are perceived as more familiar than novel metaphors (M = 2.46) and meaningless utterances (M = 0.6)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Figurative language impairment has been documented for a variety of clinical diseases and has fascinated psychiatric researchers and clinicians for decades (Kleist, 1914; Kasanin, 1944; Kanner, 1946). Comprehension and explanation of figurative language are both used to test nonliteral language miscomprehension in psychiatric patients in clinical and research context (Gorham, 1956; Elmore and Gorham, 1957; Rapp and Wild, 2011). The miscomprehension of meanings is a hallmark symptom of schizophrenia. It manifests itself in miscomprehension of intentions, delusionial phenomenae, and language abnormalities (Kleist, 1914; Kasanin, 1944; Crow, 2000; Rapp and Steinhäuser, 2013). The deficit includes all subtypes of figurative language including proverbs (Brattemo, 1962; Rapp et al, 2014), metaphors (Langdon et al, 2002; Schneider et al, 2015; Bambini et al, 2016a), irony (Sparks et al, 2010; Rapp et al, 2013, 2014), and idioms (Titone et al, 2002; Schettino et al, 2010; Sela et al, 2015)

Objectives
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call