Literature DB >> 34363178

Negation Cancels Discourse-Level Processing Differences: Evidence from Reading Times in Concession and Result Relations.

Ludivine Crible1.   

Abstract

Seminal studies on negation revealed that negative sentences are difficult to process, as they require an extra mental step. Similarly, at the discourse level, concession has been repeatedly shown to be more complex than other relations such as result because it implies the denial of an inference. The affinity between negation and concession prompted the present study to test whether overt verb polarity would affect the processing of upcoming discourse relations. In particular, it investigated whether negation can act as a cue to help process concessive relations. Results from four self-paced reading experiments indeed show a robust facilitation effect of negation on concession that cancels the baseline difference between concessive and result relations, thus nuancing existing context-blind categorizations of concession as a highly complex relation. This study furthers our understanding of how various types of cues interact in discourse processing and switches the focus from "what makes negation easier to process" to "what is made easier thanks to negation".
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Concession; Discourse processing; Negation; Result; Self-paced reading

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34363178     DOI: 10.1007/s10936-021-09802-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res        ISSN: 0090-6905


  9 in total

Review 1.  Simultaneous inference in general parametric models.

Authors:  Torsten Hothorn; Frank Bretz; Peter Westfall
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 2.207

2.  Anticipatory looks reveal expectations about discourse relations.

Authors:  Hannah Rohde; William S Horton
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2014-09-20

3.  Complex sentences: acquisition of syntactic connectives and the semantic relations they encode.

Authors:  L Bloom; M Lahey; L Hood; K Lifter; K Fiess
Journal:  J Child Lang       Date:  1980-06

4.  Reversing expectations during discourse comprehension.

Authors:  Ming Xiang; Gina Kuperberg
Journal:  Lang Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2015-07-01       Impact factor: 2.331

5.  Predicting contrast in sentences with and without focus marking.

Authors:  Katy Carlson
Journal:  Lingua       Date:  2014-10-01

6.  When the truth is not too hard to handle: an event-related potential study on the pragmatics of negation.

Authors:  Mante S Nieuwland; Gina R Kuperberg
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2008-12

7.  Collecting psycholinguistic response time data using Amazon mechanical Turk.

Authors:  Kelly Enochson; Jennifer Culbertson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-30       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Form and function: Optional complementizers reduce causal inferences.

Authors:  Hannah Rohde; Joseph Tyler; Katy Carlson
Journal:  Glossa       Date:  2017-05-31

9.  PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy.

Authors:  Jonathan Peirce; Jeremy R Gray; Sol Simpson; Michael MacAskill; Richard Höchenberger; Hiroyuki Sogo; Erik Kastman; Jonas Kristoffer Lindeløv
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2019-02
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.