Experiential simulations of negated text information

Kaup, Barbara; Yaxley, Richard H.; Madden, Carol J.; Zwaan, Rolf A.; Lüdtke, Jana

doi:10.1080/17470210600823512

Cited by 183 publications

(161 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

130

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Generally, the results support previous findings according to which affirmative sentences are processed faster (Cheng and Huang 1980;Clark and Chase 1972;Kaup et al 2005;Kaup et al 2006;Kaup, Yaxley, Madden, Zwaan and Lüdtke 2007) and more accurately (Just and Carpenter 1971;Margolin and Abrams 2009) compared to negations. The results are consistent with the twostep model of negation comprehension.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…The results showed a significant effect of quantifiers on reaction time F In general, the results of the analysis support previous findings and the two-step model of negation processing (Kaup et al 2005;Kaup et al 2006;Kaup, Yaxley, Madden, Zwaan and Lüdtke 2007). All three types of negation exhibited longer reaction times compared to affirmative sentences.…”

Section: Reaction Timesupporting

confidence: 80%

“…The only exception was observed in the case of affirmatives with relative disproportional quantifiers and negations with null quantifiers, as no significant difference between the two was found. Although it seems logical to assume that congruent sentence-picture pairs are easier to process, research on negations has often reported negation-by-truthvalue interaction (Just and Carpenter 1971;Kaup, Yaxley, Madden, Zwaan and Lüdtke 2007). The analysis of negations showed a similar pattern as reported by previous research, with higher accuracy in the case of incongruent pairs compared to congruent pairs.…”

Section: Accuracysupporting

confidence: 73%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Ćoso

Bogunović

2016

RiL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract 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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Reaction Timesupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Accuracysupporting

confidence: 73%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Ćoso

Bogunović

2016

RiL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Notably, Kaup and colleagues have carried out a number of investigations to examine the question of how negated concepts, and their consequences, are represented in a non-linguistic system (Kaup, in press;Kaup, Yaxley, Madden, Zwaan & Lüdtke, 2007;Lüdtke, Friedrich, De Filippis & Kaup, 2005). Participants read sentences such as, 'There was no eagle in the sky/ nest', and then decided whether the object displayed in a picture, which followed sentence offset after a brief delay (e.g., 250 ms), was mentioned in the sentence.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eye-movements and ERPs reveal the time course of processing negation and remitting counterfactual worlds

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to update our current knowledge using contextual information is a vital process during every-day language comprehension. To understand a negated statement, readers are required to cancel real-world expectations, but are not explicitly provided with an alternative model. Thus, the question of how and when a negative context influences interpretation of later events arises. We report one eye-movement study (Exp.1) and one ERP study (Exp. 2) investigating the effects of negation on discourse processing. Prior context depicted a real-world (RW), or negated-world (NW), while a second sentence was manipulated to create RW anomalous continuations, where events included a violation of RW knowledge, and RW congruent continuations, where the events described were congruent with RW knowledge. Results from Experiment 1 showed that the negated discourse context did not influence initial processing of the target sentence, as reflected in participants' eye movement behaviour. Similarly, Experiment 2 revealed that the typical N400 effect to semantic violations has not been reversed by introducing a negated-world context. However, in later processing, Experiment 1 demonstrated that the negated-world context is eventually incorporated into the representation of the sentence meaning. Thus, we suggest that discourse does not always have an immediate effect on language comprehension and discuss the results in terms of a variety of accounts of representing negation. Section: Cognitive and Behavioural Neuroscience

show abstract

“…Another explanation is based on the scheme-plus-tag model (Mayo et al, 2004); negation mark dissociation results in correspondence of a sentence with the negated state of affairs. Also, the two-step simulation hypothesis (Kaup et al, 2007) has been used to explain this phenomenon; to understand negation we must simulate the negated state of affairs mentally before asking the question of what action should be taken instead of the negated one.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%