Negation in context: Evidence from the visual world paradigm

REFERENCES

• Allopenna, P. D., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 419–439. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1997.2558
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, S., Huette, S., Matlock, T., & Spivey, M. (2010). On the temporal dynamics of negated perceptual simulations. In F. Parrill, V. Tobin, & M. Turner (Eds.), Meaning form and body (pp. 1–20). Stanford University, CA: CSLI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Byrne, R. M. J. (2005). The rational imagination: How people create alternatives to reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1975). Sentence comprehension: A psycholinguistic processing model of verification. Psychological Review, 82, 45–73. doi: 10.1037/h0076248
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H., & Chase, W. G. (1972). On the process of comparing sentences against pictures. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 472–517. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(72)90019-9
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, R. M. (1974). The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and language processing. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 84–107. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(74)90005-X
   Google Scholar
• Dale, R., & Duran, N. D. (2011). The cognitive dynamics of negated sentence verification. Cognitive Science, 35, 983–996. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01164.x
   Google Scholar
• Duñabeitia, J. A., Avilés, A., Afonso, O., Scheepers, C., & Carreiras, M. (2009). Qualitative differences in the representation of abstract versus concrete words: Evidence from the visual-world paradigm. Cognition, 110, 284–292. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.012
   Google Scholar
• Ferguson, H. J., Sanford, A. J., & Leuthold, H. (2008). Eye-movements and ERPs reveal the time course of processing negation and remitting counterfactual worlds. Brain Research, 1236, 113–125. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2008.07.099
   Google Scholar
• Fillenbaum, S. (1966). Memory for gist: Some relevant variables. Language and Speech, 9, 217–227.
   Google Scholar
• Genovese, C. R., Lazar, N. A., & Nichols, T. (2002). Thresholding of statistical maps in functional neuroimaging using the false discovery rate. Neuroimage, 15(4), 870–878. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2001.1037
   Google Scholar
• Givón, T. (1978). Negation in language: Pragmatics, function, ontology. Syntax and Semantics, 9, 69–105.
   Google Scholar
• Glenberg, A. M., Robertson, D. A., Jansen, J. L., & Johnson-Glenberg, M. C. (1999). Not propositions. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research, 1, 19–33. doi: 10.1016/S1389-0417(99)00004-2
   Google Scholar
• Grice, H. P. (1961). The causal theory of perception. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supp., XXXV, 121–153. doi: 10.1093/aristoteliansupp/35.1.121
   Google Scholar
• Hasson, U., & Glucksberg, S. (2006). Does understanding negation entail affirmation? An examination of negated metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1015–1032. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.12.005
   Google Scholar
• Huette, S., & Anderson, S. (2012). Negation without symbols: The importance of recurrence and context in linguistic negation. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience, 11, 295–312. doi: 10.1142/S0219635212500239
   Google Scholar
• Huette, S., Anderson, S., Matlock, T., & Spivey, M. (2011, July 20–23). A one-stage distributed processing account of linguistic negation. Proceedings of the 33rd annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Boston, MA, pp. 2037–2042.
   Google Scholar
• Huettig, F., & Altmann, G. T. M. (2011). Looking at anything that is green when hearing “frog”: How object surface colour and stored object colour knowledge influence language-mediated overt attention. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(1), 122–145. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2010.481474
   Google Scholar
• Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Tridgell, J. (1972). When negation is easier than affirmation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 87–91. doi: 10.1080/14640747208400271
   Google Scholar
• Kaup, B., Lüdtke, J., & Zwaan, R. A. (2006). Processing negated sentences with contradictory predicates: Is a door that is not open mentally closed? Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1033–1050. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.012
   Google Scholar
• Kaup, B., Zwaan, R. A., & Lüdke, J. (2007). The experiential view of language comprehension. How is negation represented? In F. Schmalhofer & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Higher language processes in the brain (pp. 255–289). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Khemlani, S., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2012). Hidden conflicts: Explanations make inconsistencies harder to detect. Acta Psychologica, 139, 486–491. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.01.010
   Google Scholar
• Khemlani, S., Orenes, I., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2012). Negation: A theory of its meaning, representation, and use. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24, 541–559. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2012.660913
   Google Scholar
• Lea, R. B., & Mulligan, E. J. (2002). The effect of negation on deductive inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(2), 303–317.
   Google Scholar
• Lüdtke, J., Friedrich, C. K., De Filippis, M., & Kaup, B. (2008). ERP correlates of negation in a sentence-picture-verification paradigm. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(8), 1355–1370. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2008.20093
   Google Scholar
• Lüdtke, J., & Kaup, B. (2006, July 26–29). Context effects when reading negative and affirmative sentences (poster). 28th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Sheraton Vancouver Wall Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• MacDonald, M. C., & Just, M. A. (1989). Changes in activation levels with negation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(4), 633–642.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, E., Shao, K. C., & Boff, K. R. (1993). Saccadic overhead: Information-processing time with and without saccades. Perception & Psychophysics, 53, 372–380. doi: 10.3758/BF03206780
   Google Scholar
• Mayo, R., Schul, Y., & Burnstein, E. (2004). “I am guilty” vs. “I am innocent”: Successful negation may depend on the schema used for its encoding. Journal or Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 443–449.
   Google Scholar
• Mirman, D., Dixon, J. A., & Magnuson, J. S. (2008). Statistical and computational models of the visual world paradigm: Growth curves and individual differences. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 475–494. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.006
   Google Scholar
• Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence Intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorial in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(2), 61–64.
   Google Scholar
• Moxey, L. M., & Sanford, A. J. (1987). Quantifiers and focus. Journal of Semantics, 5, 189–206. doi: 10.1093/jos/5.3.189
   Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S. & Kuperberg, G. R. (2008). When the truth is not too hard to handle: An event-related potential study on the pragmatics of negation. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1213–1218. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02226.x
   Google Scholar
• O'Brien, F., & Cousineau, D. (2014). Representing error bars in within-subject designs in typical software packages. Tutorial in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 10(1), 56–67.
   Google Scholar
• Orenes, I., Beltrán, D., & Santamaría, C. (2014). How negation is understood: Evidence from the visual world paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language, 74, 36–45. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2014.04.001
   Google Scholar
• Orenes, I., Navarrete, G., Beltrán, D., & Santamaría, C. (2012). Schizotypal people stick longer to their first choices. Psychiatry Research, 200, 620–628. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2012.03.030
   Google Scholar
• Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372
   Google Scholar
• Stalnaker, R. (1998). On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 7, 3–19. doi: 10.1023/A:1008254815298
   Google Scholar
• Strawson, P. (1952). Introduction to logical theory. London: Methuen and CO.
   Google Scholar
• Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268(5217), 1632–1634. doi: 10.1126/science.7777863
   Google Scholar
• Tian, Y., Breheny, R., & Ferguson, H. J. (2010). Why we stimulate negated information: A dynamic pragmatic account. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 2305–2312. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2010.525712
   Google Scholar
• Trabasso, T., Rollins, H., & Shaughnessy, E. (1971). Storage and verification stages in processing concepts. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 239–289. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(71)90014-4
   Google Scholar
• Wason, P. C. (1965). The contexts of plausible denial. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4, 7–11. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(65)80060-3
   Google Scholar
• Wason, P. C. (1972). In real life negatives are false. Logique et Analyse, 15, 17–38.
   Google Scholar
• Wason, P. C., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1972). Psychology of reasoning: Structure and content. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wason, P. C., & Jones, S. (1963). Negatives: Denotation and connation. British Journal of Psychology, 54, 299–307. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1963.tb00885.x
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2002). Language comprehenders mentally represent the shape of objects. Psychological Science, 13, 168–171. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00430
   Google Scholar