Andersson, Richard

Farshchi, Sara

Paradis, Carita

English

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITYPO Box 117221 00 Lund+46 46-222 00 00The Processing Cost of Negation in Sentence ComprehensionFarshchi, Sara; Andersson, Richard; Paradis, Carita2014Document Version:Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordLink to publicationCitation for published version (APA):Farshchi, S., Andersson, R., & Paradis, C. (2014). The Processing Cost of Negation in SentenceComprehension. Abstract from Experimental Psycholinguistics Conference (ERP), Madrid, Spain.Total number of authors:3General rightsUnless other specific re-use rights are stated the following general rights apply:Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authorsand/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by thelegal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private studyor research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portalRead more about Creative commons licenses: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will removeaccess to the work immediately and investigate your claim. The Processing Cost of Negation in Sentence Comprehension: Evidence from Eye Movements Sara Farshchi, Carita Paradis and Richard Andersson Lund University  This study investigated the processing cost associated with negation using eye-tracking methodology. Three forms of negation, namely prefixal negation (prefix un-), sentential negation (negator not) and double negation (not un-) along with the base form (no negation) were compared. The stimuli consisted of 20 sets of negated adjectives such as intentional vs. unintentional vs. not intentional vs. not unintentional. The comprehension of these negated forms was tested through a congruent or incongruent subsequent context (e.g., If the evidence shows that the fire in the school was unintentional, the jury will find the headmaster guilty/innocent in court). The eye movements of 25 native speakers of English were recorded and analyzed. The results suggest that negation does not affect early processing or involve any early carry-over effects to the subsequent context as indicated by the insignificant differences in first-pass reading times on the negated adjectives and on the subsequent context. Moreover, no effect was found in the dwell time on the congruent/incongruent word. However, the results of the analysis on the proportion of regressions back to the negated adjectives suggest that participants had difficulty in processing and made more regressions to adjectives with double negation (not un-), sentential negation (not) and prefixal negation (un-) in that order. This was further supported by the dwell time analysis on the negated adjectives. The dwell times were significantly longer for the three negation forms not un-, not and un- in that order. This could suggest that in order for the sentences to be verified, participants had to go back to the negated forms and further process negation. The results provide further support for the processing difficulty associated with negation, suggesting that negation disrupts processing at a later stage in the integration of information. In addition, the results suggest that prefixed words are also a form of negative and involve a processing cost compared with the base form. However, prefixed forms are not as difficult as sentential negation and double negation.      References Cruse, A. (2011). Meanin in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H., & Van de Weijer, J. (2011). Eye Tracking: A Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hoosain, R. (1973). The processing of negation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior , 12, 618-626. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1976). Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology , 8, 441-480. Paradis, C., & Willners, C. (2006). Antonymy and negation—The boundedness hypothesis. Journal of Pragmatics , 38 (7), 1051-1080. Plag, I. (2003). Word-Formation in English. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sherman, M. A. (1976). Adjectival negation and the comprehension of multiply negated sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior , 15, 143-157. Sherman, M. A. (1973). Bound to be easier? The negative prefix and sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior , 12, 76-84. Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

The Processing Cost of Negation in Sentence Comprehension

https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/files/26238576/SaraFarshchi_ERP2014.pdf

The Processing Cost of Negation in Sentence Comprehension

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Lund University Publications