4.2 Article

Semantic and pragmatic processes in the comprehension of negation: An event related potential study of negative polarity sensitivity

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROLINGUISTICS
Volume 38, Issue -, Pages 71-88

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2015.11.001

Keywords

Negation; Semantics and pragmatics; Negative polarity; Discourse processing; Assertion and non-assertion; ERP

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Most previous studies on negation have generally only focused on sentential negation (not), but the time course of processing negative meaning from different sources remains poorly understood. In an ERP study (Experiment 1), we make use of the negation sensitivity of negative polarity items (NPIs) and examine the time course of processing different kinds of negation. Four kinds of NPI-licensing environments were examined: the negative determiner no, the negative determiner few, the focus marker only, and emotive predicates (e.g., surprised). While the first three contribute a negative meaning via semantic assertion (explicit negation), the last gives rise to a pragmatic negative inference via non-asserted content (implicit negation). Under all these environments, an NPI elicited a smaller N400 compared to an unlicensed NPI, suggesting that negation, regardless of its source, is rapidly computed online. However, we also observed that explicit negative meaning (i.e., semantic, as contributed in the assertion) and implicit negative meaning (contributed by pragmatic inferences) were integrated into the grammatical representation in different ways, leading to a difference in the P600, and calling for a separation of semantic and pragmatic integration during sentence processing (and NPI licensing). The qualitative differences between these conditions were also replicated in a self-paced reading study (Experiment 2). (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available