Cognitive processing of verbal quantifiers in the context of affirmative and negative sentences: A Croatian study

Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p> 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.</jats:p>

The role of linguistic cues in bilingual negation processing

“…As previous research has indicated (e.g. Ćoso & Bogunović, 2016;Kaup et al, 2007a), the differences in negation processing may not be ascribed only to the two-step processing, as described by Kaup et al (2005Kaup et al ( , 2007a. The role of different linguistic cues could also be significant.…”

“…For example, Kaup et al (2007a) found that definite negations are processed faster compared with indefinite negations, suggesting that word order and negation type could affect the creation of a situational model from the sentence. Ćoso and Bogunović (2016) recently found a significant difference in the processing of same-polarity sentences with first-order quantifiers. Negative concord sentences with null quantifiers were processed faster and more accurately than sentences with disproportional and non-universal quantifiers.…”

“…A vast body of research has shown that negations are more complex to process than affirmatives in young adults (e.g. Budiu & Anderson, 2005; Carpenter & Just, 1975; Cheng & Huang, 1980; Clark & Chase, 1972; Ćoso & Bogunović, 2016; Just & Carpenter, 1971; Just & Carpenter, 1976; Kaup, 2001, 2006; Kaup, Lüdtke, & Zwaan, 2005, 2006; Kaup, Yaxley, Madden, Zwaan, & Lüdtke, 2007a; Kaup, Zwaan, & Lüdtke, 2007b; Lea & Mulligan, 2001; Margolin & Hover, 2011; Tian & Brecheny, 2015), as well as older adults (e.g. Margolin, 2015; Margolin & Abrams, 2009).…”

“…Research has shown that different types of negations elicit different reaction times and accuracy rates (e.g. Kaup, Yaxley, Madden, Zwaan, & Lüdtke, 2007a), which could be ascribed to linguistic cues (Ćoso & Bogunovic, 2016). As described earlier, linguistic cues occur on all linguistic levels.…”

Mental simulation of the factual and the illusory in negation processing: evidence from anticipatory eye movements on a blank screen

“…The one-step or two-step debate is additionally complexified by factors that are known to cause processing differences, such as language-specific structural cues in negation 15 – 18 . One such linguistic cue is negative concord 6 , 19 – 21 a type of negation that languages like English and Croatian tolerate differently. Negative concord is a linguistic feature where a sentence contains multiple negative elements, but they contribute to just one semantic negation 22 , 23 .…”