Cognitive Processing of Verbal Quantifiers in the Context of Affirmative and Negative Sentences: a Croatian Study

Studies from English and German have found differences in the processing of affirmative and negative sentences. However, little attention has been given to quantifiers that form negations. A picture-sentence verification task was used to investigate the processing of different types of quantifiers in Croatian: universal quantifiers in affirmative sentences (e.g. all), non-universal quantifiers in compositional negations (e.g. not all), null quantifiers in negative concord (e.g. none) and relative disproportionate quantifiers in both affirmative and negative sentences (e.g. some). The results showed that non-universal and null quantifiers, as well as negations were processed significantly slower compared to affirmative sentences, which is in line with previous findings supporting the two-step model. The results also confirmed that more complex tasks require a longer reaction time. A significant difference in the processing of same-polarity sentences with first-order quantifiers was observed: sentences with null quantifiers were processed faster and more accurately than sentences with disproportional and non-universal quantifiers. A difference in reaction time was also found in affirmatives with different quantifiers: sentences with universal quantifiers were processed significantly faster and more accurately compared to sentences with relative disproportionate quantifiers. These findings indicate that the processing of quantifiers follows after the processing of affirmative information. In the context of the two-step model, the processing of quantifiers occurs in the second step, along with negations

Exploring modality switching effects in negated sentences: further evidence for grounded representations

Theories of embodied cognition (e.g., Perceptual Symbol Systems Theory; Barsalou, 1999, 2009) suggest that modality specific simulations underlie the representation of concepts. Supporting evidence comes from modality switch costs: participants are slower to verify a property in one modality (e.g., auditory, BLENDER-loud) after verifying a property in a different modality (e.g., gustatory, CRANBERRIES-tart) compared to the same modality (e.g., LEAVES-rustling, Pecher et al., 2003). Similarly, modality switching costs lead to a modulation of the N400 effect in event-related potentials (ERPs; Collins et al., 2011; Hald et al., 2011). This effect of modality switching has also been shown to interact with the veracity of the sentence (Hald et al., 2011). The current ERP study further explores the role of modality match/mismatch on the processing of veracity as well as negation (sentences containing “not”). Our results indicate a modulation in the ERP based on modality and veracity, plus an interaction. The evidence supports the idea that modality specific simulations occur during language processing, and furthermore suggest that these simulations alter the processing of negation

Negation Processing: a Dynamic Pragmatic Account

This thesis investigates the processing of negative assertions. Psycholinguistic research shows that out-of-context negative sentences are more difficult to process than positive sentences. In the early stages of negation processing, the positive counterpart is often represented. Pragmatic research shows that negative sentences have richer pragmatic functions than positive sentences. These findings require a theory of negative sentence processing that can account for both the processing effects and pragmatic functions. Among current theories, a popular approach – rejection approach – attributes the processing effects to the processing of the linguistically coded meaning of negative sentences. They propose that negative sentences are represented as the rejection of their positive counterparts. They state that the representation of the positive counterpart is a mandatory first step of negation processing, and explain the processing cost in terms of the extra step of embedding. Arguing against current theories (especially rejection accounts), I propose the dynamic pragmatic account. In general, sentence processing – with or without explicit context- should not only involve processing the linguistically coded content, but also involve inferring pragmatically retrieved content such as how the sentence relates to the broader discourse. Specifically, when we interpret an assertion, we not only process the asserted meaning, but also the Question Under Discussion (QUD) addressed by this assertion, which can be retrieved and accommodated using linguistic and non-linguistic cues. Negation is a cue for retrieving the prominent QUD. Without contextual support or further cues, the most prominent QUD for a negative sentence ¬p is the positive question whether p. The projection of this positive QUD is due to the most frequent uses of negation, and is sensitive to other factors (e.g. frequency of the predicate and context) and other QUD cues (e.g. prosodic focus and cleft construction). I propose that the accommodation of a positive QUD contributes to the processing cost of negation, explains why the positive counterparts are often represented, and accounts for the pragmatic effects of negative sentences. The dynamic pragmatic account and competing theories are tested in three series of experiments in Chapters 3-5. In Chapter 3, I show that the representation of the positive counterpart is not a mandatory first step for negation processing. Rather it is likely due to QUD accommodation. When a negative sentence projects a negative prominent QUD (such as a cleft negative sentence “It is John who hasn’t ironed his shirt”), the positive counterpart is no longer represented. In Chapter 4, I investigate the verification of negative sentences against pictures. Previous studies have reported inconsistent results where verifying true negative sentences can take less, equal amount or more time than verifying false negatives. I argue that two strategies can be used in the task: the default strategy and the truth-functional strategy. The default strategy is to infer and represent the situation that makes the sentence true and compare it with the evidence. In addition, the accommodation of the positive QUD may encourage the development of a truth-functional strategy, in which participants answer the positive QUD and then switch the truth index. I show that when negative sentences project positive QUDs, there is a training effect: the reaction time pattern of true and false negatives change over time, indicating a development of a task-specific strategy; on the other hand, when negative sentences project negative QUDs, participants no longer develop the task-specific strategy. In Chapter 5, I investigate the time course of negative sentence processing in a visual world eye-tracking study. The results show that processing simple negative sentences is delayed compared to processing simple positives, but processing cleft negatives is no more delayed than processing cleft positives. Importantly, both QUD accommodation and the integration of the meaning of negation can happen incrementally. Overall, the findings speak against current models of negation processing (especially rejection accounts), and support the dynamic pragmatic account

The Role of Predictability During Negation Processing in Truth-Value Judgment Tasks

In experiments investigating the processing of true and false negative sentences, it is often reported that polarity interacts with truth-value, in the sense that true sentences lead to faster reaction times than false sentences in affirmative conditions whereas the same does not hold for negative sentences. Various reasons for this difference between affirmative and negative sentences have been discussed in the literature (e.g., lexical associations, predictability, ease of comparing sentence and world). In the present study, we excluded lexical associations as a potential influencing factor. Participants saw artificial visual worlds (e.g., a white square and a black circle) and corresponding sentences (i.e., “The square/circle is (not) white”). The results showed a clear effect of truth-value for affirmative sentences (true faster than false) but not for negative sentences. This result implies that the well-known truth-value-by-polarity interaction cannot solely be due to long-term lexical associations. Additional predictability manipulations allowed us to also rule out an explanatory account that attributes the missing truth-value effect for negative sentences to low predictability. We also discuss the viability of an informativeness account.Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001659Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen (1020)Peer Reviewe

Comprehending negation: A study with adults diagnosed with high functioning autism or Asperger's syndrome

Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich.This publication is with permission of the rights owner freely accessible due to an Alliance licence and a national licence (funded by the DFG, German Research Foundation) respectively.We investigated whether readers with high-functioning autism or Asperger's syndrome (HA/AS) differ from normal controls with respect to pragmatic aspects of negation processing. We presented short stories to two groups of readers, a group of individuals diagnosed with HA/AS and a group of normal controls. The final sentence of each story either affirmed or negated a particular proposition, which in the pragmatically felicitous context corresponded to a highly plausible assumption for the situation at hand, but in the pragmatically infelicitous context to an implausible assumption. In line with our predictions, the group of healthy controls read the negative but not the affirmative target sentences more slowly in the pragmatically infelicitous than in the pragmatically felicitous contexts. In the pragmatically felicitous context, reading times for negative sentences were as fast as those for affirmative sentences. In contrast, for the clinical group, the context had no effect: Reading times for the negative target sentences were longer than those of the affirmative target sentences in both context versions. These results indicate that individuals with HA/AS indeed differ from normal controls with respect to negation processing. Moreover, these results are in line with the more general hypothesis that the differences between normal individuals and those with HA/AS concern pragmatic aspects of language processing

Modality switching and negation: ERP evidence for modality-specific simulations during negation processing

The Perceptual Symbol System Theory of cognition (Barsalou, 1999) suggests that modality-specific simulations underlie representation of concepts. This is evidenced by processing costs for switching modalities. That is, participants are slower to verify a property in the auditory modality (e.g., BLENDER-loud) after verifying a property in a different modality (e.g., CRANBERRIES-tart) and faster when verifying a property in the same modality (e.g., LEAVES-rustling). The modality switch cost has also been shown to lead to a modulation of the N400 event-related potential (ERP) (Collins, Pecher, Zeelenberg & Coulson, 2011 using a property verification task; Hald, Marshall, Janssen & Garnham, 2011 using a sentence verification task). In a separate line of research, ERP studies have indicated that without a discourse context, negated sentences are more difficult to process than affirmative sentences, leading to a different N400 pattern for negative sentences than for affirmative sentences (e.g., Fischler, Bloom, Childers, Roucos, & Perry, 1983.) Unlike affirmative sentences, sentences containing negation show a larger N400 for correct, semantically coherent single sentences (i.e., factually true sentences) than for semantically incorrect sentences (i.e., false sentences). However, Nieuwland and Kuperberg (2008,) found that the pragmatics of the sentence can change this N400 pattern to one closer to affirmative sentences. The goal of the current study was to explore whether the processing of negation could be aided by modality matching information. Other evidence suggests that comprehenders create a simulation of negative sentences (Kaup, Yaxley, Madden, Zwaan, & Lüdtke, 2007), but it is unclear whether modality matching information could modulate the processing cost of negation. Essentially, can modality matching information as reported by Collins et al., (2011) and Hald et al., (2011) lead to a modulation of the N400 for true negated sentences similar to that seen when discourse pragmatics supports negation? Furthermore, we were interested in whether the modality switch effect would lead to a similar pattern in the ERPs as that found with affirmative sentences (Collins et al., 2011 & Hald et al., 2011). Using a within-subjects design we used 160 pairs of experimental pairs which were either of the same or of a different modality. All experimental items were either visual or tactile modality and were drawn from existing sets of materials (Pecher, et al., 2003; Van Dantzig, et al., 2008). For example, a different modality pair was “A light bulb is very hot” followed by “Rice isn’t black” versus a same visual modality pair “A giraffe is spotted” followed by “Rice isn’t black”. We predicted that the underlined word is where a modulation in the N400 may be seen. Additionally, we explored veracity by making half of the experimental target sentences false (“Rice isn’t white”). Participants were asked to judge whether each sentence was typically true or false. Our initial results indicate a modulation in the ERP based on both modality and veracity. For true (“Rice isn’t black”) and false target statements (“Rice isn’t white”) different modality pairs elicit a larger frontal-central N400 like effect compared to same modality pairs (Figure 1), replicating Hald et al., (2011). When comparing true versus false, the different modality pairs elicit a large posterior N400 for true compared to false sentences (replicating the effect for negated sentences, i.e., Fischler et al., 1983). However for same modality pairs there is a reduction in the N400 to true statements; no difference is seen between true and false statements in the ERP (Figure 2). These results replicate and extend previous ERP findings using the modality switch paradigm. The evidence suggests that not only do modality-specific simulations occur but they can even aid the processing of negation

The Processing of Negation and Polarity: An Overview

Negation is a universal component of human language; polarity sensitivity (i.e., lexical distributional constraints in relation to negation) is arguably so while being pervasive across languages. Negation has long been a field of inquiry in psychological theories and experiments of reasoning, which inspired many follow-up studies of negation and negation-related phenomena in psycholinguistics. In generative theoretical linguistics, negation and polarity sensitivity have been extensively studied, as the related phenomena are situated at the interfaces of syntax, semantics and pragmatics, and are thus extremely revealing about the architecture of grammar. With the now long tradition of research on negation and polarity in psychology and psycholinguistics, and the emerging field of experimental semantics and pragmatics, a multitude of interests and experimental paradigms have emerged which call for re-evaluations and further development and integration. This special issue contains a collection of 16 research articles on the processing of negation and negation-related phenomena including polarity items, questions, conditionals, and irony, using a combination of behavioral (e.g., rating, reading, eye-tracking and sentence completion) and neuroimaging techniques (e.g., EEG). They showcase the processing of negation and polarity with or without context, in various languages and across different populations (adults, typically developing and ADHD children). The integration of multiple theoretical and empirical perspectives in this collection provides new insights, methodological advances and directions for future research.Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001659Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (1034)Peer Reviewe

When the Truth Is Not Too Hard to Handle: An Event-Related Potential Study on the Pragmatics of Negation

Our brains rapidly map incoming language onto what we hold to be true. Yet there are claims that such integration and verification processes are delayed in sentences containing negation words like not. However, studies have often confounded whether a statement is true and whether it is a natural thing to say during normal communication. In an event-related potential (ERP) experiment, we aimed to disentangle effects of truth value and pragmatic licensing on the comprehension of affirmative and negated real-world statements. As in affirmative sentences, false words elicited a larger N400 ERP than did true words in pragmatically licensed negated sentences (e.g., “In moderation, drinking red wine isn't bad/good…”), whereas true and false words elicited similar responses in unlicensed negated sentences (e.g., “A baby bunny's fur isn't very hard/soft…”). These results suggest that negation poses no principled obstacle for readers to immediately relate incoming words to what they hold to be true