Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T20:02:53.355Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effet du vieillissement sur le traitement du langage non-littéral*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2010

Maud Champagne ,
Seendy Jean-Louis  and
Yves Joanette
Maud Champagne*
Affiliation:
Centre de recherche, Institut universitaire de gériatrie de Montréal et Faculté de médecine, Université de Montréal
Seendy Jean-Louis
Affiliation:
Centre de recherche, Institut universitaire de gériatrie de Montréal et Faculté de médecine, Université de Montréal
Yves Joanette
Affiliation:
Centre de recherche, Institut universitaire de gériatrie de Montréal et Faculté de médecine, Université de Montréal
*
Requests for offprints should be sent to: / Les demandes de tirés-à-part doivent être addressées à : Maud Champagne, Ph.D., Centre de recherche, Institut universitaire de gériatrie 4565, chemin Queen-Mary Montréal, QC H3W 1W5. (M-Champagne@crhsc.rtss.qc.ca)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Communication abilities are known to decline with age. In daily life, such abilities are frequently of the non-literal type, which require more cognitive resources to be processed. Since these resources tend to diminish with age, this study seeks to identify a possible effect of age on non-literal language abilities. Forty young and 40 older adults of two different education levels were compared on their non-literal and literal language abilities. Results suggest that age does not affect the processing of non-literal language but could affect some preliminary components of the task, thought to require more cognitive resources. This study does not provide direct evidence to suggest that elderly participants experience specific difficulties in processing non-literal language.

Abstract

On sait que les habiletés de communication changent avec l'âge. De telles habiletés font souvent intervenir, au quotidien, le langage non-littéral, qui requiert plus de ressources cognitives pour être traité. étant donné que les ressources cognitives diminuent avec l'âge, cette étude tente de déterminer s'il existe un possible effet de l'âge sur les capacités à traiter le langage non-littéral. Quarante individus jeunes et quarante individus âgés, de deux niveaux de scolarité, ont été évalués sur leur capacité de traitement du langage non-littéral versus littéral. Les résultats suggèrent que l'âge n'affecte pas le traitement du langage non-littéral, mais pourrait avoir un effet sur une étape précoce de la tâche dont on suppose qu'elle pourrait être plus exigeante en ressources cognitives. Cette étude n'appuie pas l'idée selon laquelle les individus âgés auraient des difficultés spécifiques pour traiter le langage non-littéral.

Keywords

agingpragmaticsnon-literal languagetaskeducation levelvieillissementpragmatiquelangage non-littéraltâchescolarité
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , Spring/Printemps 2006 , pp. 55 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association on Gerontology 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Cette étude a pu être réalisée grâce au support financier des Instituts de recherche en santé du Canada à YJ (subvention # MT-15006) ainsi qu'au support financier de la Fondation des Maladies du Cœur du Canada à MC.

References

Références

Bara, G.B., Bucciarelli, M. et Geminiani, G.C. (2000). Development and decay of extra-linguistic communication. Brain and Cognition, 43, 21–27.Google ScholarPubMed
Beeman, M.J. (1998). Coarse semantic encoding and discourse comprehension. Dans Beeman, M. et Chiarello, C. (dir.), Right hemisphere language comprehension. Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience (p. 255–284). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bihrle, A.M., Brownell, H.H. et Powelson, J.A. (1986). Comprehension of humorous and nonhumorous materials by left and right brain-damaged patients. Brain and Cognition, 5, 399–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Binder, K.S.Duffy, S.A. et Rayner, K. (2001). The effects of thematic fit and discourse context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 297–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brownell, H.H., Michelow, D., Powelson, J. et Gardner, H. (1983). Surprise but not coherence: Sensitivity to verbal humor in right-hemisphere patients. Brain and Language, 18, 20–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brownell, H.H., Potter, H.H. et Bihrle, A.M. (1986). Inference deficits in right brain-damaged patients. Brain and Language, 27, 310–324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brownell, H.H., Simpson, T.L., Bihrle, A.M., Potter, H.H. et Gardner, H. (1990). Appreciation of metaphoric alternative word meanings by left and right brain-damaged patients. Neuropsychologia, 28(4), 375–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Champagne, M., Virbel, J. et Nespoulous, J.L. (1999). The differential processing of literal and nonliteral speech acts: A psycholinguistic approach. Dans Serafini, , Brézillon, , Benerecetti, et Castellani, (dir.), CONTEXT 99: 2nd international and interdisciplinary conference on modeling and using context (p. 451–454). Berlin: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Champagne, M., Virbel, J., Nespoulous, J.L. et Joanette, Y. (2003). Impact of right hemispheric damage on a hierarchy of complexity evidenced in young normal subjects. Brain and Cognition, 53(2), 152–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, H.H. (1979). Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 430–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H.H. et Lucy, P. (1975). Understanding what is meant from what is said: A study in conversationally conveyed requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 56–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H.H. et Shunk, D.H. (1980). Polite responses to polite requests. Cognition, 8, 111–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuerva, A.G., Sabe, L., Kuzis, G., Tiberti, C., Dorrego, F. et Starkstein, S.E. (2001). Theory of mind and pragmatic abilities in dementia. Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology and Behavioral Neurology, 14(3), 153–158.Google ScholarPubMed
Eccleston, C. (1992). SuperLab (Version 1.5). Psychology Software News, 3(2), 51–52.Google Scholar
Eisenson, J. (1962). Language and intellectual modifications associated with right cerebral damage. Language and Speech, 5, 49–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foldi, N.S., Cicone, M. et Gardner, H. (1983). Pragmatic aspects of communication in brain-damaged patients. Dans Segalowitz, S.J. (dir.) Language functions and brain organization (p. 51–86). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foldi, N.S. (1987). Appreciation of pragmatic interpretations of indirect commands: Comparison of right and left hemisphere brain-damaged patients. Brain and Language, 31, 88–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Folstein, M.F., Folstein, S.E. et McHugh, P.R. (1975). Mini mental state. Journal of Psychiatry Research, 12, 189–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, H., Brownell, H.H., Wapner, W. et Michelow, D. (1983). Missing the point: The role of the right hemisphere in the processing of complex linguistic materials. Dans Perecman, E. (dir.), Cognitive processing in the right hemisphere (p. 169–191). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R.W. (1982). A critical examination of the contribution of literal meaning to understanding nonliteral discourse. Text, 2, 9–28.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R.W. (1994). The poetics of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gineste, M.D. et Scart-Lhomme, V. (1999). Comment comprenons-nous les métaphores? l'Année psychologique, 99, 447–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grady, C.L., Maisog, J.M., Horwitz, B., Ungerleider, L.G., Mentis, M.J., Salerno, J.A., Pietrini, P., Wagner, E. et Haxby, J.V. (1994). Age-related changes in cortical blood flow activation during visual processing of faces and location. Journal of Neuroscience, 14, 1450–1462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregory, M.E. et Waggoner, J.E. (1996). Factors that influence metaphor comprehension skills in adulthood. Experimental Aging Research, 22, 83–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. Dans Cole, P. et Morgan, J.L. (dir.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts (p. 374–395). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hirst, W., Ledoux, J. et Stein, S. (1984). Constraints on the processing of indirect speech acts: Evidence from aphasiology. Brain and Language, 23, 26–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Humphrey, H.E., Kemper, S. et Radel, J.D. (2004). The time course of metonymic language text processing by older and younger adults. Experimental Aging Research, 30, 75–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joanette, Y., Goulet, P. et Hannequin, D. (1990). Right hemisphere and verbal communication. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joanette, Y., Goulet, P. et Daoust, H. (1991) Incidence et profils des troubles de la communication verbale chez les cérébrolésés droits. Revue de neuropsychologie, 1(1), 3–27.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Kaplan, J.A., Brownell, H.H., Jacobs, J.R. et Gardner, H. (1990). The effects of right hemisphere damage on the pragmatic interpretation of conversational remarks. Brain and Language, 38, 315–333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Light, L.L., Owens, S.A., Mahoney, P.G. et LaVoie, D. (1993). Comprehension of metaphors by young and older adults. Dans Cerella, J., Hoyer, W., Rybash, J., et Commons, M.L. (dir.), Adult information processing: Limits on loss (pp. 459–488). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Madden, D.J., Turkington, T.G., Provenzale, J.M., Denny, L.L., Langley, L.K., Hawk, T.C. et Coleman, R.E. (2002). Aging and attentional guidance during visual search: Functional neuroanatomy by positron emission tomography. Psychology and Aging, 7(1), 24–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monetta, L., Champagne, M., Desautels, M.C. et Joanette, Y. (2003). Impact of resources restriction on processing of non-literal utterances. Brain and Language, 87, 208–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navon, D. et Gopher, D. (1979). On the economy of the human processing system. Psychological Review, 56, 214–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newsome, M.R. et Glucksberg, S. (2002). Older adults filter irrelevant information during metaphor comprehension. Experimental Aging Research, 28, 253–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papagno, C. (2001). Comprehension of metaphors and idioms in patients with Alzheimer's disease: A longitudinal study. Brain, 124, 1450–1460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papagno, C., Lucchelli, F., Muggia, S. et Rizzo, S. (2003). Idiom comprehension in Alzheimer's disease: The role of the central executive. Brain, 126, 2419–2430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Qualls, C.D. et Harris, J.L. (2003). Age, working memory, figurative language type, and reading ability: Influencing factors in African American adults' comprehension of figurative language. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 92–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reuter-Lorenz, P.A., Stanczak, L. et Miller, A.C. (1999). Neural recruitment and cognitive aging: Two hemispheres are better than one, especially as you age. Psychological Science, 10, 494–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roman, M., Brownell, H.H., Potter, H.H. et Seibold, M.S. (1987). Script knowledge in right hemisphere-damaged and in normal elderly adults. Brain and Language, 31, 151–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salthouse, T.A. (1994). The aging of working memory. Neuropsychology, 8, 535–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemmer, B., Giroux, F. et Joanette, Y. (1994). Production and evaluation of requests by right hemisphere brain-damaged individuals. Brain and Language, 47, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Szuchman, L.T. et Erber, J.T. (1990). Young and older adults' metaphor interpretation: The judgments of professionals and nonprofesssionals. Experimental Aging Research, 16(2), 67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Linden, M. et Huppet, M. (1994). Le vieillissement cognitif. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Vogel, D., Sugar, J. et Cardillo, J. (1995). Idiom explanation by older persons. Communication présentée lors du congrès annuel de l'American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Orlando, Floride.Google Scholar
Weylman, S.T., Brownell, H.H. et Gardner, H. (1989). Appreciation of indirect requests by left and right brain-damaged patients: The effects of verbal context and conventionality of wording. Brain and Language, 36, 580–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winner, E. et Gardner, H. (1977). The comprehension of metaphor in brain-damaged patients. Brain, 100, 717–723.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed